Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD (LANDS) BILL (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

"Daily Worker" (Building Licence)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Works what is the amount of the licence granted to the "Daily Worker" on the construction of its new building in Farringdon Street.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) on 1st December last.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Whatever the amount, how does the right hon. Gentleman justify such a large expenditure at this time, when the workers, and others, are so badly in need of houses?

Mr. Key: The work was originally started and a licence granted, with the support of the Ministry of Information, in December, 1945. Work subsequently required by the district surveyor resulted in some increase in the expenditure involved.

Mr. Gallacher: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the sum total of the property owned by the Tory and Liberal Press?

Mr. Speaker: That is quite another question, and has nothing to do with this one.

Ken Wood House (Repair Licence)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Minister of Works on what grounds he has ref used the Iveagh Trustees a permit for repairs of Ken Wood House; and whether he will reconsider his decision.

Mr. Key: A licence for the repair of Ken Wood House at a cost of £1,500 has been issued.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that this announcement will give very great satisfaction to a large number of Londoners who take a great interest in this matter?

Communist Offices, Strand (Building Materials)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Works if he will give details of the building materials supplied to the Communist offices at the corner of King Street and Bedford Street, Strand, during the last two years to date; and, in view of the acute demand for housing material why priority was given to any of these supplies.

Mr. Key: Licences were granted mainly for essential repairs and fire protection required by the London County Council. I cannot give details of the materials actually supplied. Priority was granted for the supply of certain materials in order that the work should not come to a stop.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of recent developments, will His Majesty's Government show that they mean real business about this Communist menace and requisition this property and hand it over to business firms?

Mr. Speaker: That does not affect the real business.

Mr. Molson: May I ask whether the Minister of Works thinks it extremely desirable that there should be a fire in this building?

Cement Supplies, Scotland

Mr. Hoy: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware of the shortage of cement supplies in Scotland; and if he will take action to ensure an adequate and continuous supply.

Mr. Key: There was a temporary dislocation in the supply of cement to Scotland early this month, due to interference by fog with shipping. The present rate of shipment will ensure that Scotland receives a fair share of the supplies of cement available for the home market.

Mr. Hoy: Can the Minister give an assurance that he will maintain a continuous and adequate supply in view of the fact that 200 men were put out of employment a fortnight ago because of the shortage there?

Mr. Key: The Minister would like to do so, but he is not in charge of fog and other things which hinder transport.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that a shortage of plasterboard is causing a hold-up of housing all over the West of Scotland, and will he help in this respect?

Mr. Key: That is quite another question.

Palace of Westminster (Services, Maintenance)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Works whether he will make a statement about the strike of industrial employees in his Department.

Captain John Crowder: asked the Minister of Works if he has any statement to make on the unofficial strike of the maintenance men employed by his Department in the Palace of Westminster and other Government establishments.

Mr. Key: I am glad to say that the men have resumed work.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Minister use whatever influence he may have in the matter to ensure that the further negotiations are not unduly protracted, either by the representatives of the trade unions or anyone else concerned in the matter?

Mr. Key: Certainly there is going to be no undue protraction. I understand the trade union representatives and the Minister of Labour are meeting this afternoon.

Captain Crowder: In view of the fact that these employees have been asking to have their wages reviewed for the last 18 months, could the Minister ask his Department to keep in closer touch with their employees?

Mr. Key: There is some misunderstanding in regard to the 18 months. As a matter of fact, a formal application was only submitted in January of this year.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Can the Minister say when the boilers are to be relighted?

Mr. Key: The boilers have been relighted, and hot water will come on between four and five o'clock this afternoon.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Wherever the responsibility lies for the long delay in this case, if it be the case that something like 18 months have elapsed since this matter was first raised, is it not possible for the Government to impress upon trade unions and Government Departments alike the necessity for the urgent treatment of such claims?

Mr. Key: Certainly. It would help particularly if the trade union organisations themselves formulated their request at a rather more rapid rate than was done in this particular case.

Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend say what the average wage of these men has been?

Brick Production, Bedfordshire

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Works (1) how long he expects it will be before the full production of bricks in Bedfordshire will be restored; and what steps are being taken to clear and make use of the accumulated stocks in this part of the country for housing;
(2) what are the reasons for the closure of Elstow Brickworks, Bedfordshire, and for the reduction in the night shift at the Stewartby works, having regard to Me housing needs of the country.

Mr. Key: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ealing, East (Sir F. Sanderson), on 15th March.

Sir W. Smithers: Is not this surplus of bricks due to the political venom of the Minister of Health?

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is it not a fact that only a few months ago the Minister was pressing brickworks which had been closed during the war to reopen? Is it not the


case now that many brickworks which were reopened at great expense will have to be closed?

Mr. Key: It is true that some time ago we were pressing them to reopen. The present situation is testimony to the efficiency of what we did. The immediate difficulty is only temporary, and I am sure that it will be overcome in a short period.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does the situation which is set out in my Questions virtually mean that the supply of bricks has outrun the supply of timber in this country, and if so how soon will the balance be redressed?

Mr. Key: The limiting factors in building work are timber and steel. Without them, the consumption of bricks cannot be brought up to the normal standard.

Storage Sheds, Totton

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that for the last year discussions have been taking place between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Works relative to the release of the timber storage sheds of Messrs. Burt, Boulton and Haywood of Totton, Hampshire; that these discussions have still proved inconclusive; and whether in view of the urgent need for adequate timber storage space in this country he will take action to have these premises de-requisitioned forthwith.

Mr. Key: In consultation with the Board of Trade my Department has been trying for several months to find alternative premises for the Fire Service who are occupying the storage sheds. Accommodation is now being adapted for the purpose and it is hoped to release the storage sheds by August.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Minister says, "It is hoped." Can he give a more definite assurance than that? No doubt he realises that the release was promised in May last year, and that many vague promises such as the one the right hon. Gentleman has given this afternoon have been given. Can he give us something more definite now?

Mr. Key: No. I exhibit, in this matter, the one conservative characteristic I have of being careful about giving dates in advance.

Requisitioned Shops, Brighton

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Minister of Works what is his policy as regards the requisitioning of shops and parts of stores as offices by Government Departments; whether he is aware that one Ministry has used large floor space in a Brighton store since 1940, causing considerable loss to this store; and whether he will make arrangements to transfer this burden to some other firm or to the local borough.

Mr. Key: It is my policy to restrict requisitioning of vacant accommodation to the minimum and I should only requisition occupied premises in the most exceptional circumstances. This applies to shops and stores as to other premises. I am aware that the Brighton Food Office is still in part of a Brighton store and I am anxious to move it elsewhere as soon as suitable vacant premises can be found.

Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that it is British fair play to have landed this one particular business, since 1940, with all the expenses of the cost and loss arising out of having the Ministry of Food there? Does he not think that the question of finding other premises which are suitable is a matter for urgent decision, because there are other borough premises which could be used? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter and take a more active interest in it?

Mr. Key: I have looked into the question of the borough premises referred to, and I am assured by the Corporation that they are required for specific Corporation purposes.

Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they are not required for other purposes for a year or two? Surely the Ministry of Food does not intend to remain there indefinitely.

Mr. Key: My information is not what the hon. Member has given.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH COUNCIL

Turkey

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress is being made in Turkey in the organisation of classes in English for


Turkish students; and how far the work of the British Council has been recognised by reciprocal action on the part of the Turkish authorities.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): The English classes organised by the British Council in Turkey are now well established and were attended by 4,542 students in the last quarter of 1947, which compares with 4,563 students for the same quarter of 1946. Increasing emphasis is being laid on the training of Turkish teachers of English and it is hoped that this work, which is now undertaken at Ankara, will shortly be extended to Istanbul and Izmir. The British Council in Turkey receives a full measure of cooperation from the Turkish authorities.

Sir P. Hannon: Does the hon. Gentleman contemplate the extension of this beneficent work in Turkey, and can he say whether the shortage of teachers of English prevents more active progress?

Mr. Mayhew: We would willingly extend it but we have to bear in mind the question of overseas expenditure.

Spain

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state, as at the latest convenient date, the number of institutes under the direction of the British Council now in operation in Spain; the totals of members and students attached to the institutes; and how far the cultural activities of the British Council are receiving expanding co-operation from the Spanish people.

Mr. Mayhew: There are five British institutes in Spain under the direction of the British Council. At the end of December, 1947, there were 4,606 students and 3,772 members attached to these institutes. These figures represent a slight decrease from the total of the previous year.

Sir P. Hannon: In view of the great progress made in this work of the British Council in Spain, would the hon. Gentleman consider whether the time has not arisen for a review of our diplomatic relations with Spain to bring about more friendly understanding?

Mr. Mayhew: That is an entirely different question.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us, about the 4,000 odd students and the 3,000 odd members, how much these two figures overlap, how much the same persons occur in both lists?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not think they overlap, but I would like notice of that question.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Is there still any stipulation about the religion of representatives of the British Council in Spain?

Mr. Mayhew: I would like notice of that question.

Sweden

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement as to the number and membership of the Anglo-Swedish societies organised in Sweden by the British Council; and as to how far the educational activities of the Council are being encouraged and supported by universities and schools throughout Sweden.

Mr. Mayhew: There are 77 Anglo-Swedish societies in Sweden with a total membership estimated at, well over 10,000. They are, however, not organised by the British Council but are all autonomous organisations founded on Swedish initiative. The British Council receives considerable support from universities and schools throughout Sweden. British Council summer schools are well attended, large groups of Swedish teachers have at their own expense attended refresher courses in Britain and competition for British Council scholarships is extremely keen. In addition an increasing number of specialists are interesting themselves in British achievements and in many cases their investigations are sponsored by official Government organisations. Various county educational boards have asked the British Council to run a number of courses under their auspices and at their expense.

Sir P. Hannon: Do not these replies indicate that the work of the British Council in these various countries is having a great effect on their attitude to the significance of British friendship, and their appreciation of the British way of life?

Mr. Mayhew: I agree. I think it is a very useful contribution.

Oral Answers to Questions — B.B.C. SIAMESE SECTION (EDITOR)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recommendations he made concerning the appointment of an editor for the Siamese section of the B.B.C. Far Eastern Broadcasting Service.

Mr. Mayhew: Since responsibility for the staff of the British Broadcasting Corporation rests with the Corporation, it would not have been proper for my right hon. Friend to offer recommendations.

Mr. Teeling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Department unofficially put forward the name of one of their own Siamese experts who was retiring and was ready to take on this work, and that he was not even interviewed? Further, is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Department also unofficially informed the B.B.C. how unwise it was that a Siamese should, especially at the present time, be put in charge of this particular department.

Mr. Mayhew: In reply to the last part of that supplementary question, I understand there is close supervision by British subjects of all foreign language broadcasts. In reply to the first part of the question, no doubt informal conversations took place, but I cannot accept responsibility for the appointment.

Mr. Teeling: If what the hon. Gentleman says about supervision taking place is correct, how is it possible for anyone to supervise the Siamese who is at the head of this section, unless he is someone who speaks Siamese? There is no one there who speaks Siamese.

Mr. Mayhew: I would like to look into the point as to whether there is anyone who speaks Siamese but my information is that all these foreign broadcasts are supervised by British subjects?

Mr. Warbey: Does my hon. Friend mean that his Department takes no responsibility for informal advice which is given on these matters?

Mr. Mayhew: I said that I took no responsibility for the appointment, but if I am told, and I cannot check it, that informal conversations have taken place, that would seem to be natural.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPATRIATION OF POPULATIONS, EUROPE

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish a report of the discussions which took place at Yalta with regard to the forcible expatriation of populations from North and Middle Europe, including Eastern Poland, East Prussia, Silesia and Czechoslovakia.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. The forcible expatriation of populations was not a special subject for discussion at the Yalta talks. There was discussion on the future western frontier of Poland, and it was realised that this might involve population transfers from such areas as East Prussia and Silesia, but no definite decisions on such transfers were taken.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, I know that no decisions were taken. My right hon. Friend told me that last week. Are we to understand from the answer that this most unwise and unprecedented forcible expatriation of some 15 million people was taken as a sort of afterthought of Potsdam, and was never really properly discussed at Yalta at all?

Mr. Mayhew: It is true that it was not a subject of special discussion at Yalta.

Mr. Stokes: Was it discussed at Yalta? I want to know not whether it was the subject of special discussion, but whether it was discussed at all.

Mr. Mayhew: I have said that there was a discussion about the future of the western frontier of Poland, and it was realised that this might involve population transfers, but there is no mention in the report of the Conference that there was any discussion on the forcible expatriation of populations from Czechoslovakia, or Eastern Poland.

Professor Savory: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us when the agreement for the expatriation of the Sudeten Germans from Czechoslovakia took place?

Mr. Mayhew: That was not discussed at Yalta; it falls outside the question.

Mr. Stokes: It was discussed at Potsdam.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government will use their full weight to


put an end to this inhuman practice, and that if any further proposals for expatriation are made we shall do all we can to avoid them?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROUMANIA (BRITISH OIL COMPANIES)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the treatment of British oil companies by the Roumanian Government.

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. The policy of the Roumanian Government appears to aim at gaining possession of British and British-owned oil companies without payment. This is being done both by accusations of "economic sabotage," and by so interfering with their commercial activities as to force them into bankruptcy. One British oil company has been instructed by the Roumanian Government to sell certain of its assets to a Soviet controlled company at prices fixed in local currency by the Roumanian Government. The Roumanian Government has appointed administrators to two British-owned Roumanian companies. The State Administrator appointed to Astra Romana, the largest oil company in Roumania, has acted in a manner so prejudicial to the interests of the British majority shareholders that they recently decided to declare Astra Romana in a state of forcible dissolution and to withdraw the British staff from Roumania. The oil companies also have various causes for complaint against the Roumanian Government arising out of the Peace Treaty.

Mr. Reid: May I ask if anything can be done to stop this iniquitous policy on the part of the Roumanian Government?

Mr. Mayhew: Where companies have put forward claims or grievances His Majesty's Government have been ready to support them, and we shall be ready to do the same in the future.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that the work of the British oil companies in Roumania, over a period of many years, did more to raise the standard of living in Roumania than any other single factor?

Mr. Platts-Mills: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that there will be widespread

satisfaction in the country when finally we bring about a state of affairs where Britons are no longer associated with the ruthless exploiting of Roumania?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In what precise form does the Government intend to sponsor the claims of the oil companies?

Mr. Mayhew: We are at present actively discussing many of these issues with the Roumanian authorities, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the Minister if he would not advise the Roumanian Government to nationalise these oil wells, and then arrange compensation, on the same lines as the compensation for the railways in the Argentine?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the Minister say how many companies have received requests to mediate?

Mr. Mayhew: I am afraid I should need notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Morgenthau Plan

Mr. Michael Foot: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now consider the publication of a White Paper describing the negotiations which led to an agreement, approved by the British Prime Minister in September, 1944, on the Morgenthau scheme for the pastoralisation of Germany; the precise terms of the agreement; and any subsequent negotiations which may have taken place leading to the abrogation of the agreement.

Mr. Mayhew: The so-called Morgenthau Plan was considered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and President Roosevelt during the Quebec Conference in September, 1944. It was then carefully examined by His Majesty's Government, as were a number of other plans for the future of Germany, but was never adopted or agreed to. Except on the one occasion of the Quebec Conference there were no negotiations on the plan between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government, and the plan lapsed. In these circumstances it is not considered


that any useful purpose would be served by publishing a White Paper on the subject.

Mr. Foot: Will my hon. Friend direct the attention of the Foreign Secretary to the revelations made by Mr. Cordell Hull in his memoirs, recently published in the United States, which contradict the evidence now given to this House that no agreement was finally reached on this subject; and does he not think that it is high time the whole of this murky matter was examined, and a full statement made to this House by those responsible for signing this infamous document?

Mr. Mayhew: I think that is an injustly sinister interpretation to put upon what went on. The truth is that President Roosevelt and the right hon. Gentleman did initial a document at Quebec. Presumably, the right hon. Gentleman's agreement was subject to consideration by his colleagues, and that was as far as that agreement—so called—went at the Quebec Conference. I do not consider such a sinister interpretation should be placed upon it.

Mr. Foot: Are we to understand from that statement that the British Government of the time repudiated the signature which the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) affixed to the document?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman cannot now ask the right hon. Member for Woodford to make a statement, because he is not responsible at the moment. One cannot go back. That is an old ruling of this House.

Mr. Mayhew: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, if I said that the agreement was signed, I should have said that it was initialled—[HON. MEMBERS: "You did say it was initialled."] It was an initial on a discussion which took place. Of course, I have no doubt it was taken that any initial of that kind would be subject to agreement by the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask how the hon. Gentleman reconciles what he has just said with the generally accepted view in America that the Morgenthau Plan formed the basis for the Potsdam Agreement, and will he take my hon. Friend's advice, and call the attention of his right

hon. Friend to the Cordell Hull revelations, which really will astound him if he reads them carefully?

Mr. Mayhew: I can only speak from my own information. I cannot accept responsibility for generally accepted views in other countries.

Mr. Blackburn: Has it not been most generously admitted by former Secretary of State Byrnes, that our conduct in this matter was a great deal more farsighted than that of either the United States of America or the Soviet Union?

Mr. Foot: In view of the tact that there is a real discrepancy between the statements made by my hon. Friend and the evidence given by Mr. Cordell Hull, does not the Minister think that it would be a good thing that there should be a full publication of all the reports of discussions which went on, and the publication of documents, which have never been presented to this House, even though they have been published in all the newspapers in the United States?

Mr. Mayhew: I am not aware of these discrepancies, but perhaps I have not sufficiently studied the source of information to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I do not accept this sinister interpretation. I think the facts I have stated are a straightforward and perfectly plain account of what happened.

Mr. Foot: In view of the obscurity of this matter, I wish to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Factories, Dismantling

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any decision has yet been reached to discontinue the dismantling in the British zone of Germany of factories which can be used for peaceful production.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir.

Mr. Blackburn: Is my hon. Friend aware that public opinion in the country as a whole hopes that very soon a decision will be announced that the dismantling of these factories has definitely been ended?

Mr. Boothby: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long this suicidal nonsense is to continue? Is it going on at the present time, and how much longer is it to go on?

Mr. Molson: In view of the fact that the Government have said that Western Germany is expected to play its part in the Marshall Recovery Plan, is it really intended to continue dismantling Western Germany's industrial equipment?

Mr. Mayhew: I have nothing to add now to the policy statements that have been made on this question already by my right hon. Friend.

Housing Programmes

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish a statement, giving the housing programme for 1948 and 1949, respectively, for each of the main industrial cities in the British zone of Germany.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. All housing programmes are drawn up by the Germans themselves, and owing to the crippling shortage of building materials practically all of them are confined to repairs and maintenance. They are not communicated to the Control Commission and I regret that an unjustifiable expenditure of time and effort would be involved in their collection. The only programme available is the Ruhr miners' two-year housing programme, in which, owing to its economic importance, the Control Commission has had to retain a direct interest. I am sending a copy of this programme to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Stokes: Can my hon. Friend say to what extent the general building of new houses is being restricted by this ridiculous programme of dismantling plants which are capable of producing both building machinery and building equipment? He must know that, otherwise he cannot have dismantled any.

Mr. Mayhew: The dismantling programme, as has often been explained, takes into account the fact that there are not sufficient materials to keep in production the plant dismantled. Therefore, the underlying assumption of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is not valid.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, but as no new houses have been built, and as machinery is required for the purpose, and the works for building machinery are being dismantled —how does he tie all that up together? Surely, it is absurd.

Mr. Mayhew: I would not like to carry this argument much further without notice. I do not think that anything the hon. Member has said is inconsistent with my view that shortage of materials could account for all of it,
Mr. Stokes: No houses have been produced.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If the Ruhr miners are to get new houses, will the Minister guarantee that the miners' wives will be given sufficient soap?

Mrs. Middleton: In view of the fact that we are finally responsible for the government of this part of Germany, and of the fact that housing conditions there are so utterly deplorable, cannot the Minister do something to obtain for the House the information on the subject which we ought to have?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not think I can really give an undertaking to provide the facts in respect of housing outside the Ruhr. That is not a matter for the Control Commission, and I believe that the statistics would involve a great deal of expense and labour to acquire, but, on the Ruhr housing programme, I will willingly make the information available and send a copy to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAKIA (BRITISH-BORN WIVES, REPATRIATION)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign 'Affairs whether he is aware that there are large numbers of British-born women married to Czechoslovak citizens living in Czechoslovakia who will be entitled, as soon as the British Nationality Bill has become an Act, to repatriation to this country; and whether, in view of the present serious situation in Czechoslovakia, anything can be done to bring them home before the Bill has become law.

Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend is well aware that when the British Nationality Bill becomes law a number of British-born women who have lost British nationality by marriage to Czechoslovak and other foreign nationals will receive back their British nationality. Those who have acquired Czechoslovak nationality, however, will not thereby cease to


be Czechoslovak nationals, and consequently any general arrangement for removing them from Czechoslovakia, should the need arise, would require the co-operation of the Czechoslovak authorities. I am, however, informed that an indication has been given by the Czechoslovak authorities that no difficulties will be placed in the way of British-born women wishing to leave Czechoslovakia.

Mr. Teeling: The hon. Gentleman says that no difficulty will be placed in the way. Does that mean that no difficulties are being placed in the way at the present time, and is it not true that several British-born wives, in the last few days, as I understand, and according to the newspapers, were stopped from coming over here, due to their visas not being in order?

Mr. Mayhew: It may be that, for a routine reason, such as visas not being in order, there was some delay, but, in general, we have been told to expect cooperation from the Czech authorities in this matter.

Mr. Molson: When these British-born wives of Czechs return to this country, will the Czech authorities allow their husbands to come with them?

Mr. Mayhew: I should need notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (VARKIZA AGREEMENT)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government still consider themselves bound by their guarantee of the Varkiza agreement.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government did not guarantee the agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in the case of those prisoners of war about whom he recently gave to the hon. Member for Bedford an assurance that they would not be forcibly repatriated if they feared physical, political or religious persecution, he will make

arrangements to have them classified as displaced persons with the object of making them eligible for various jobs in this country for which no suitable British labour is available.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. Under the terms of the International Refugee Organisation constitution, as approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in December, 1946, these men cannot be classified as displaced persons.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Could they then be classified as European Volunteer Workers?

Mr. Mayhew: No, not under existing arrangements, but if my hon. Friend has some other more concrete point in mind, perhaps he would let me know.

Earl Winterton: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether they come within the ambit of the International Refugee Organisation, if they are not classified in the manner described?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. I do not think that they do.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN RECOVERY PROGRAMME

Mr. M. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in taking any decisions involving economic co-operation between the 16 nations represented in Paris, he will consider what role could be played in their implementation by the Economic Commission for Europe at Geneva.

Mr. Mayhew: This is one of the problems which will be considered by the working party which was set up by the Committee for European Economic Cooperation at its recent meeting in Paris to consider the constitution and functions of the Continuing Organisation of the 16 participating countries.

Mr. Philips Price: Is it not desirable that the decisions of the 16 nations on economic matters should be fitted in with the work as far as possible?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, that is so. As I have explained, that will be one of the tasks of the working party.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Does not the Economic Commission include a number of


nations whose prime object it is to smash the co-operation which has been discussed at Paris?

Mr. Mayhew: Also, it contains a number of members whose trade is of great importance for the economic recovery of Europe.

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will extend the British contribution to the European Recovery Programme to include, either alone or in association with allied and friendly Powers, an undertaking of all immediate and necessary assistance to the Italian Government against armed insurrection in that country directed to the overthrow of the existing democratic and constitutional régime.

Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend is naturally paying the keenest attention to the situation in Italy. As I explained to the hon. Member in reply to his Question on 15th March, however, my right hon. Friend does not think that extraneous subjects of this nature should be considered in connection with the European Recovery Programme.

Mr. Warbey: Will my hon. Friend agree that last week's announcement about Marshall aid to Italy, and yesterday's announcement about Trieste, show that British and American interference in the internal politics of Italy——

Mr. Speaker: That is merely asking for an opinion and not for information.

Oral Answers to Questions — BENELUX COUNTRIES (MUTUAL ASSISTANCE)

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of recent events in Czechoslovakia, he will approach the signatories of the Treaty signed at Brussels to extend the provisions relating to mutual aid, in the event of any signatory becoming an object of attack, to include all necessary and immediate assistance as may be required against armed insurrection directed to the overthrow of the existing democratic and constitutional government in any of the participating countries.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. None of the signatories of the Treaty has at any time suggested that such an arrangement would be useful.

Mr. Donner: Bearing in mind the view expressed by General Smuts, that the whole world can be submerged by Communism without a war, is not the lack of any such undertaking a serious omission in the Brussels Treaty?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not think that the problem is as simple as is suggested in the hon. Member's original Question. On the other hand, it would be clearly within the provisions of the Treaty for a country to bring such questions as those to which he refers immediately to the Consultative Council.

Mr. Donner: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the urgency of the matter?

Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend, of course, has all that in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT AND SUDAN

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made or proposes to make to the Government of Egypt regarding the assumption by the King of Egypt of the title of the King of the Sudan.

Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend is awaiting further details from Egypt of the precise nature of the action taken by the Egyptian Parliament and its effects on the Egyptian constitution. But any such action, taken unilaterally, cannot affect the international status of the Sudan as laid down in the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium Agreement of 1899 and as confirmed in the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936.

Mr. Gammans: Do I understand from that answer that His Majesty's Government would, in no circumstances, recognise the assumption of this title by the King of Egypt?

Mr. Mayhew: As I said, we are awaiting further information from Egypt.

Oral Answers to Questions — "SOMETHING DONE" (SALES OVERSEAS)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will arrange for the publication "Something Done" to be translated into the more important foreign languages for sale overseas, so that the achievements of this


country from 1945 until 1947 may be more widely publicised; and whether any copies are being distributed in the U.S.A.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: On a point of Order. Has there 'not been a printing error in this Question? Should not the word "achievements" be "failures"?

Mr. Mayhew: It is unfortunately not possible to produce translated versions of this publication, owing to the high cost and technical difficulties involved. Arrangements have, however, been made to provide the Information Officers of our Missions abroad with adequate supplies of the English version for sale. These arrangements, of course, include distribution in the United States.

Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the mischievous intervention that we have just heard from the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, is it not all the more desirable that something should be done to spread information about the achievements mentioned in this booklet as widely as possible overseas?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes. I entirely agree. It is a fine thing—a very good thing—when a British Government have achievements to talk about.

Mr. Henry Strauss: In the interests of clarity and truth, could the Minister arrange that any further publications of this document shall include paragraph 245 of the Economic Survey for 1948?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (ARAB INCURSIONS)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish the official protests and representations which have been made to Arab States regarding hostile Arab incursions into Palestine.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir.

Mr. Warbey: In view of the brilliant victory gained by the Foreign Secretary for the Arab League at Lake Success, will my hon. Friend now consider sending notes of congratulation to the Arab States on the success of their violent opposition to the United Nations?

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA (CONSULAR AND POLITICAL POSTS)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what diplomatic, consular and political posts in Persia and the Persian Gulf to which appointments were made by the old Government of India have been taken over by his Department; and how many such posts have been abolished since the surrender of British power in India.

Mr. Mayhew: As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Keeling: Would the Minister say whether any of these posts have been taken over by either the Dominion of India or the Dominion of Pakistan?

Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps the hon. Member will read the reply.

Following is the answer:

The following Consular posts in Persia, which were formerly staffed by the Government of India, have been take over by the Foreign Office since the transfer of power: Meshed, Khorramshar, Bushire.

The following posts have been closed, except insofar as some of them are being kept on a "care and maintenance" basis until such time as the Governments of India and Pakistan are able to staff them: Kerman, Zabul, Zahidan, Bandar Abbas, Birjand, Lingeh.

On the Arabian side of the Persian Gulf, all the posts formerly staffed by the Government of India have been taken over by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. These posts are now staffed by my Department but will be, in other respects, under the authority of the Commonwealth Relations Office until the end of the current financial year. After that date the Foreign Office will be wholly responsible for them.

The posts in question consist of a Political Residency at Bahrain, Political Agencies at Bahrain and Koweit, a Political Office on the Trucial Coast, and a Consulate and Political Agency at Muscat.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC STAFFS, EASTERN EUROPE (MEDICAL SERVICES)

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied that adequate medical services are available to the staffs of His Majesty's diplomatic and consular posts in the U.S.S.R., Poland, Hungary, Roumania and Bulgaria.

Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend fully recognises the importance of this question. The position at Moscow is that there is a British resident doctor on the staff of our Embassy who has at his disposal a well-equipped consulting room with a stock of drugs. At Warsaw, in co-operation with the United States Embassy, we are about to set up a small nursing home with a resident doctor, the expenses to be shared by the Foreign Office and the State Department. Small stocks of important drugs are kept at our Missions at Budapest, Sofia and Bucharest and we are looking into the possibility of making arrangements similar to those at Warsaw.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE YEMEN (BRITISH REPRESENTATION)

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the lack of information available to His Majesty's Government on the state of affairs in the Yemen, he will consider appointing a permanent representative in that country.

Mr. Mayhew: The Government of the Yemen have hitherto been unwilling to receive resident foreign representatives. Should they change their mind, my right hon. Friend will be happy to consider such an appointment.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Is it a fact that at the moment the only channel of information to His Majesty's Government about the Yemen is through the Governor of Aden.

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, that is so. The Governor acts as the only channel of communication.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Bread Rationing (Administrative Staff)

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Minister of Food the number of officials

engaged in the administration of the B.U. scheme of bread rationing; and whether he is satisfied that present results still justify the expenditure of this manpower.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): About 750 local food office staff spread over 1,200 food offices deal with bread rationing. I am satisfied that the results of the bread rationing scheme still justify the labour expended upon it.

Mr. Amory: Is it not a fact that this particular scheme has broken down in many parts of the country to a point where B.U.s are no longer collected, and is not this an indication that the matter needs reconsideration?

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the fact that the population has increased by two millions since 1946, and that flour delivered for human consumption is less by 2.6 per cent, than the amount delivered in 1946, I think this is still justified.

Mr. Lipson: Can the hon. Lady confirm or deny the story which appeared in today's papers that bread rationing is to cease shortly?

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the hon. Lady mention any parts of the country where the scheme is actually operating at all?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir.

Tomatoes (Price Control)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the fact that ample supplies are likely to be available, he will reconsider his decision to reimpose control of the distribution of home grown tomatoes.

Mrs. Leah Manning: asked the Minister of Food if he is yet in a position to make a statement about the price and distribution of tomatoes for the 1948 season.

Dr. Summerskill: As my hon. Friends will know, strongly conflicting advice has been given to us by the trades concerned. My right hon. Friend has, however, decided that price control must be introduced but distribution will be effected under a voluntary scheme, under which the N.F.U. ensure that, where necessary, loadings are made in consultation with my Department.

Mr. Collins: Is my hon. Friend aware that she is to be congratulated on this very wise decision, which will improve distribution, reduce the cost to the consumer and will no longer leave the wholesalers under the regrettable necessity of taking money for which they have done no work? Will she also look into similar schemes of food distribution to see whether similar action can be taken, because wholesalers would like to perform their normal functions and not receive money for nothing?

Mr. Erroll: As price control of tomatoes has led to a serious shortage in the past, can the hon. Lady say how she will prevent a shortage arising in future?

Dr. Summerskill: As it will cover only six weeks, I think the hon. Gentleman has sufficient knowledge to know that, after six weeks, there might be a glut.

Cooking Fat ("Poison" Label)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that an Australian gift tin of cooking fat, recently sent to a resident of Braintree, is embossed with the word "Poison"; if, in view of the concern and confusion caused by this error, he will cause the contents of the tin to be analysed at public expense; whether other similar cases have been reported to him; and if he will make representations with a view to preventing a repetition of the error.

Dr. Summerskill: I am informed that the cooking fat was a gift sent privately through the post from Australia. I do not think that the Government are called upon to have private parcels analysed at the public expense, but the recipient can do so if he wishes on payment of a small fee. No similar case has come to my notice, but I do not see how representations on my part could prevent a repetition of the error.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the hon. Lady assure us that, in future, this particular title will apply only to English cooking fat?

Mr. Driberg: Could my hon. Friend at least give some helpful advice to my constituent, who is in grave domestic embarrassment? He tells his wife to go ahead and use it because it is probably all

right, and she says that she does not quite like to.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend some good advice. All he has to do is to have it analysed and pay the bill.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is this not a matter where the Member of Parliament for the constituency might be very useful?

Onions, Glasgow

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that onions were unprocurable from any shop in Glasgow during week ending 14th March, and at the same time these were selling in large quantities at more than double the controlled price on all the barrow-stances of the city; and can he indicate the source of supply to the Glasgow barrow-stances.

Dr. Summerskill: These alleged irregularities have already been brought to the notice of our enforcement officers and investigations are proceeding. My hon. Friend may like to know that since January, 1947, over 160 successful prosecutions against street traders in Glasgow have been undertaken.

Mrs. Mann: Does not my hon. Friend know the source of supply? Could not her enforcement officers tell her that they know where these barrows are being loaded every day, and the exact spot at which they are being loaded? Does not my hon. Friend also know that bananas like these are being sold every day in large quantities in the streets of Glasgow? Does she doubt that?

Dr. Summerskill: No, I do not doubt what my hon. Friend says. I will let my hon. Friend have the information.

Sir W. Smithers: Is it not apparent that, in spite of these prosecutions, this has been a complete triumph for free enterprise?

Mrs. Castle: Can my hon. Friend hold out any hopes to the House that supplies in the coming months will be sufficiently great to make this "under-the-counter" business unnecessary?

Mr. Gallacher: Will the hon. Lady arrange for the bananas which have been displayed by my hon. Friend to be placed in the Library?

Food Office Staffs, Staffordshire

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Minister of Food what saving he anticipates will be made in manpower, time and efficiency by the proposed transfer of all trade work concerning local retailers from the local food offices at Uttoxeter, Rugeley and Stone to the food office at Stafford; and what benefit to the retailers concerned will result.

Dr. Summarskill: About 10 staff will be saved by the transfer of trade work for Rugeley and Stone to Stafford. Uttoxeter is not included in the scheme. Centralised trade pools already set up in different parts of the country are working smoothly, and experience has shown that they economise in manpower and provide an efficient service to traders.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (COMMUNISTS AND FASCISTS)

Mr. Bramall: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether Ministers responsible for deciding on the removal of Communists and Fascists from office in their ministries will be supplied with the full facts on which the Special Branch recommendation for removal is made; or will only be notified of the recommendation;
(2) whether persons recommended for removal from Civil Service posts as Communists or Fascists will be allowed to know the evidence on which such recommendation is based.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Ministers will have all the relevant information before making their decisions, and I have already stated that those whose removal is under consideration will be told the charge against them and given opportunity to reply.

Mr. Bramall: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the information to be given to the people charged will be the actual evidence, and not, as in the case of 18B, merely the fact that they are charged with certain hostile associations; and will he further assure the House that facilities for answering these charges given to British subjects in these circumstances will not be less favourable than those

given to Nazis who were removed from their offices in Germany?

The Prime Minister: That is a very long and complicated question, and I do not know what the procedure was under 18B. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that forward on Thursday, when we are to have a discussion on it and we can go into the matter in more detail.

Mr. Keeling: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Special Branch will have the assistance of the hon. Member in dealing with what he pointed out was the difficult problem of distinguishing between Communists and Socialists?

Mr. W. J. Brown: May I ask the Prime Minister if, between now and Thursday, when we are to discuss this matter, the Prime Minister will consider the possibility of providing between the stage when the M.I.5 report is produced and its consideration and the decision by the Minister, for the advice of an advisory committee composed of persons of standing within the Department who might qualify the police character of the report by reference to political horse sense?

The Prime Minister: I did explain before that this is not a matter solely to be dealt with by information of the Special Branch. I will be giving very full information on Thursday, when I hope to satisfy the hon. Member and this House that every opportunity will be given to those to whom this applies of making their case.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER'S SPEECH

Mr. Piratin: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a speech made by the Lord President of the Council on 13th March which called for a resistance movement with the same resources and initiative and sacrifice as in the war against Hitler to be developed against a Government with which this country is not at war; and whether this represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend was expressing a sentiment which is, I think, shared by the vast majority of the people of this country, namely, that in course of time popular movements will sweep away tyrannies.

Mr. Piratin: Does that answer mean that the Prime Minister and his Labour Government support a policy of inciting the bourgeoisie of other countries in Europe to rise up in civil war against working class Governments?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I was not dealing with working class Governments at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRIAL DOCUMENTS (PUBLICATION)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Attorney-General whether the documents relating to the trials of Tyler Kent, Anna Wolhoff and Mrs. Nicholson, on which much publicity has been made in America, can now be made public in this country.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): The documents, including the transcript of the evidence, in these cases are the subject of an Order of the High Court under Section 6 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, prohibiting the disclosure of information with respect to the proceedings, and I have no authority to order their production.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is widely stated in America that these documents consisted very considerably of telegrams sent before the war by a high person in this country to President Roosevelt behind the back of the British Government? If that is so, why should not the House be told the contents of the telegrams?

The Attorney-General: I am afraid I have no authority in the matter.

Mr. Pritt: Would my right hon. and learned Friend consider making application to the High Court to have the order put aside?

The Attorney-General: On the information I have at present, I do not think it would be in the public interest to make any such application, but I will consider any representations which my hon. and learned Friend cares to put before me in regard to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Feedingstuffs

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now able to make a

statement on the possibility of increasing the feedingstuffs ration and of varying its basis.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now state the Government's policy in connection with the cattle and poultry feedingstuffs now available for distribution, with particular reference as to whether pigs or poultry are to receive priority.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I regret I cannot yet add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend and to the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) on 1st March.

Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend indicate how soon he is likely to be able to make a statement which is very eagerly awaited by many thousands of people?

Mr. Williams: I am hopeful that I shall be able to make a statement very shortly, but it may not be too optimistic.

Mr. De la Bère: Cannot the Minister really come to a decision one way or the other now? We have been waiting week after week. Is he not aware that it will be too late for those who go in for pigs and poultry if a decision is put off much longer? It is not good enough to go on hoping from day to day
Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir, the Minister came to a decision quite recently, which was, not to give an answer he cannot fulfil.

Mr. De la Bère: May we have an answer whether pigs or poultry come first?

Mr. Philips Price: In view of the fact that certain imports are coming in from Russia, will it be possible to increase the ration?

Mr. Williams: It may or may not.

Mr. David Renton: Ever since last midsummer the Minister has been expressing hopes of finding a better method of allocation, and has admitted the defects of the present system. Will he say how long we are going to live merely in hope?

Mr. Williams: I can only repeat to the hon. Member what I have previously stated. When supplies are increased, there will be a possible broadening of the


basis of the rationing scheme, but I have always maintained that extra supplies must be available before we can do that.

Mr. De la Bère: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment. It is a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer.

Tractors

Mr. Amory: asked the Minister of Agriculture why the delivery of certain makes of British tractors has recently been retarded; and whether he is aware that this will interfere with this season's farm production programme.

Mr. T. Williams: Supplies for the home market have been very greatly increased and are at present running at double the level of a year ago.

Mr. Amory: Is it not a fact that the number of these tractors available is at present quite a good deal less than was estimated owing to certain large export commitments?

Mr. Williams: No, Sir. It is true that more Ferguson tractors are being exported than was the case a short time ago, but there is still a large number of Ferguson tractors being made available to home producers.

Quantock Staghounds

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many deer were destroyed by the Quantock staghounds during each month from February, 1947, to February, 1948, inclusive; what allocation of scarce food supplies is allowed to the hunt; and if he is satisfied with the recommendation of the Agricultural Executive Committee that 30 gallons of petrol per month be allocated for this purpose.

Mr. T. Williams: As a full answer to the first part of the Question contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The total number of deer destroyed by the Quantock stag-hounds in the period February, 1947, to February, 1948, inclusive, was 48. As to the second part of the Question, cereal coupons for 3½ cwt. per month are allowed to the hunt throughout the year, and horsefeed coupon's for 6 cwt. per month in the period August to March. With regard to the final part of the Question, I

am satisfied with the recommendation of the agricultural executive committee which was given in the interests of food production.

Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this pack of hounds is controlled from a chauffeur-driven Austin car, and is it not quite fantastic that this amount of food and petrol should be used in this most uneconomical way? Is he further aware that there is great dissatisfaction among people who are not allowed petrol when they see the regulations being got round in this way?

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend has already been given a statement indicating why the petrol allowance was made. Perhaps it would be as well if I repeated it to the House. The allowance was given because of:
The general supervision of the Quantock staghounds whilst hunting and snaring the deer to keep the herd reduced, acting on behalf of the Somerset War Agriculture Executive Committee. Sending out the venison to hospitals, public institutions, farmers and farmworkers.
Those are the terms of the application, and that is why the petrol was granted.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Could my right hon. Friend tell the House how much damage was done to agriculture by the hounds during the period in question?

Mr. Williams: No, I can only tell my hon. Friend that the application for petrol is supported by a county agriculture executive committee consisting of farmers, farmworkers, and landowners who ought to know whether or not the agricultural areas are in danger.

Following is the first part of the answer:

Statement showing the number of deer destroyed by the Quantock staghounds during each month from February, 1947, to February, 1948, inclusive.

1947




February (snowed up)
…
Nil


March
…
5


April
…
8


May to August, no hunting.




September
…
4


October
…
5


November
…
6


December
…
7


1948.




January
…
7


February
…
6


Total

48

Land Settlement Association

Mr. Attewell: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is yet in a position to make an announcement as to the future relationships between his Department and the Land Settlement Association.

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir. By an agreement to be made under Section 89 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, it has now been arranged that the Association will transfer to the State some 10,000 acres of agricultural land, most of it fully developed as smallholdings, in consideration of the remission of a debt of nearly £2 million for advances made by the Government to the Association for settling smallholders. A separate agreement has been drawn up under which the Association will continue to manage these estates as my agents. The executive committee of management will consist of seven members, of whom I shall appoint four, including the chairman and vice-chairman. Subject to confirmation by the members of the Association at their annual general meeting tomorrow, these arrangements will take effect as from 1st April next.

Veterinary Profession (Recruitment)

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture what number of recruits have entered the veterinary profession in the last 12 months and what number are now training for entry.

Mr. T. Williams: During the last 12 months, 150 students in Great Britain qualified for registration as veterinary surgeons. Inquiries are being made as to the number of students now attending veterinary colleges, and I will write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Philips Price: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the recruitment in view of the important work which these people will have to carry out in future if the scheme for livestock improvement goes through?

Mr. Williams: I believe that all available space in the colleges is being occupied.

Linseed

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Agriculture what incident or consideration led the Ministry of Agriculture to broadcast a warning to farmers that linseed had been mixed with flaxseed.

Mr. T. Williams: No such warning has been given. For last year's crop, as part of the flood emergency programme, seed had to be collected at very short notice and some lots were not pure samples. For the 1948 crop, farmers have been expected to use only first quality seed, of which plenty is available this' year.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that on two separate occasions last spring the hon. and gallant Gentleman the junior Member for Antrim (Major Haughton) called his attention to the fact that there was a danger of seed being mixed, to which the right hon. Gentleman replied that there was no fear of that at all. Is the Minister going to compensate those farmers who received seeds of two different varieties.

Mr. Williams: The first part of the supplementary question is obviously very different from the Question on the Order Paper. I have already stated that there is an ample supply of quality seed for all farmers who desire to sow linseed this year.

Mr. Baldwin: Will the Minister take steps to see that no mistakes are made in the issue of seed this year?

Mr. Williams: If farmers apply to the merchants who have the right kind of seed, no mistake will be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS' DINING ROOM (SUGGESTION BOOK)

Mr. Carson: asked the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West, as representing the Kitchen Committee, on what grounds the suggestion book in the Members' Dining Room has been abolished; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. McEntee: The Committee's decision was unanimous, and was on the grounds of greater efficiency and to avoid delay. The book was not often used, and contained only 141 entries in 36 years, and of these entries only 27 were suggestions—an average of one suggestion in each 16 months, and 110 were complaints—an average of approximately three in each year. Nearly all complaints of the kind appearing in the book can be dealt with immediately if reported to the head waiter in the dining room, and, if the complainant is still dissatisfied, he can make his


complaint verbally or in writing to the chairman. Suggestions, also, can be made verbally or in writing to the chairman, and will receive careful and prompt consideration.

Mr. Carson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this book has been in existence since 1912, and does he think there is any real reason for abolishing it now after so many years?

Mr. McEntee: I have given the reasons which the Committee considered at two meetings, and they were unanimous in the decision to which they came. I would add that during the two years in which I have been Chairman I have had more personal suggestions than have appeared in the book.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my hon. Friend aware that a great many Members did not even know of the existence of the book, and that the fact that it has now been abolished is clear evidence to some of us of the sensitivity of the Kitchen Committee to criticisms?

Mr. McEntee: The fact that most Members did not know the book was there proves, in my view, how useless it was.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any alteration to announce in the Business for this week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. Tomorrow, Tuesday, we propose to take the Palestine Bill as first Order, and we hope that it will be agreeable to the House to complete the Committee and remaining stages. Afterwards we shall proceed with the Representation of the People Bill, as already announced. At the end of the Business we shall ask the House to consider the Motion relating to Procedure of the House and Exchequer equalisation grants.

Mr. Churchill: Obviously the Palestine Bill will take a considerable time. Is it intended to sit late tomorrow night? How is that to be arranged? The Representation of the People Bill will probably not come on until late tomorrow night. How does the right hon. Gentleman envisage the proceedings?

Mr. Morrison: I am envisaging the proceedings as best I can. I had hoped that the Palestine Bill would be completed on Friday, but that did not eventuate. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is undesirable that this Bill should be delayed, because big events are related to it. Therefore, I think we must take this Bill tomorrow, and it will probably be necessary to suspend the Rule. On the other hand, I should hope that after the considerable discussion that took place on Clause 1 on Friday, we may make rather more speedy progress tomorrow, and thereby get on to the Representation of the People Bill at not too late an hour, but I do envisage that it will be necessary to suspend the Rule.

Mr. Churchill: Would it not be undesirable to begin the Representation of the People Bill at a late hour in the evening? Is there not this question of the Motion relating to the Procedure of the House and Exchequer equalisation grants? I understand the right hon. Gentleman has a statement to make on it.

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I did mention that. At the end of the Business we shall ask the House to consider the Motion relating to Procedure of the House and Exchequer equalisation grants. I hope that that will not be unduly contentious, but it is urgent because it is related to the final passage of the Local Government Bill. As to the Representation of the People Bill and the hour at which we commence the proceedings upon that Bill, we shall have to see how we go on tomorrow. We will, of course, consider the matter as the day proceeds.

Mr. Churchill: Can we have any idea of what is involved in the Motion relating to Procedure of the House in regard to the Exchequer equalisation grants?

Mr. Morrison: It will, of course, be explained tomorrow. I do not want to be bound in detail to this, but my recollection is that, broadly speaking, it may be that indirectly—[Laughter.] I should like to treat the right hon. Gentleman with courtesy and seek to explain. If his supporters laugh and giggle I will give it up. Let me try to explain it as far as I can. Consequent on the passage of the Local Government Bill, it may be that indirectly local government expenditure, as it develops, will affect Treasury expenditure,


and that in turn may affect the question of private Bills and public Bills relating to local government. It is intended that this revision of the Standing Orders should cover that new eventuality consequent on the passage of the Local Government Bill.

Mr. Churchill: Is that procedure which the Government propose, in accordance with the Rules of the House?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. I cannot exactly say that it is in accordance with the Rules of the House. It is really to bring the situation which will arise into conformity with the principles behind the Rules of the House. As it is a revision of Standing Orders, it clearly must mean a revision in the existing procedure, but its purpose is to uphold the principles behind the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr. Churchill: Would not it be wrong to have a discussion upon this matter which is not in accordance with the Rules of the House, and which involves alteration of the Standing Orders, at a very late hour tomorrow after the Debate on Palestine? Is a fragment of the Representation of the People Bill discussion to be interpolated between the Palestine Bill and the Motion relating to Procedure of the House?

Mr. Morrison: It may be so. I do not think it would be wrong to take this revision of the Standing Orders at the end of the Business. The difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman and I are in is that we really cannot tell how long the consideration of the Palestine Bill will last. I hope it will not be unduly protracted, in which case many of our apprehensions will pass away. If it is unduly protracted, I agree, we must consider the situation with care as we go along.

Mr. Pickthorn: With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's hopes about the Palestine Bill, is he not aware that one of the great events of which he has spoken has occurred since the discussion on the Motion that Clause I stand part, and thereby has put much or most of that discussion really out of date? Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was the Government who chose the date on which the Bill should be begun, and there was no attempt in any quarter of the House, least of all from the Opposition, to protract discussion?

Mr. Morrison: I am bound to say that I think the proceedings on Friday lasted longer than most people imagined they would, and certainly longer than the Government hoped, not unreasonably, that they would. With regard to events, I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman is referring to—the changes in policy of another country which have happened since then. I really do not think that materially affects the position. The central issue here is whether the British people, the British Government and Parliament wish us to prolong our stay in Palestine or whether we have come to a point where we think we must get out. That is the issue, and on that issue I do not think there is any doubt about what British public opinion is. I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House will take into account what British public opinion is.

Mr. Churchill: As the House knows, I am in favour of the general principle. I only regret that it was not undertaken at an earlier stage. But, surely, it is a very grave and painful matter, a distressing and agonising issue, and one which certainly the House should have an opportunity to discuss fully and freely. Would it not be more reasonable to take this alteration in the Standing Orders at the beginning, and then let the Palestine Measure run out the rest of the day?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that now for the second time he has misstated in the House what is the issue in this Bill? The issue is not at all whether we should get out. Everybody agrees that we should get out. Everybody who has spoken in the Debate and who voted agreed that we should end the Mandate and get out forthwith. The issue is whether we do that and leave nothing behind, or whether we do that and leave something behind.

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that we are going to rediscuss what happened in Committee on Friday. This House has no knowledge of what happened in Committee on Friday; it has not yet been reported.

Mr. Churchill: Might I have an answer to my question whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider taking the Standing Order first and giving the rest of the day to Palestine?

Mr. Morrison: If the House prefers it that way round, and upon the understanding that there is nothing unduly troublesome about the Standing Order, we shall take the Standing Order first. Then we can go on to Palestine and see whether it is possible to resume consideration of the Representation of the People Bill when the Palestine Bill has been dealt with.

Mr. Churchill: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting what I think is a very widely shared wish of the House.

Mr. Mikardo: While everybody will share the anxiety that the Palestine Bill should be dealt with as quickly as is consistent with proper discussion of the very difficult issues involved, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, when he says that we had a long discussion on the important things on Friday last, that the most important Debate on Friday was ended by the Government moving and carrying the Closure?

Mr. Speaker: We have no knowledge of that because it was in Committee.

AGRICULTURAL PRICES

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I desire to make a statement as a result of the recent annual review of economic conditions of the agricultural industry. In accordance with the established procedure the Agriculture Departments in consultation with the Farmers' Unions of the United Kingdom have conducted an annual review of the economic conditions of the agricultural industry. An examination was made of the forward estimates of costs and of the price changes made in August last in connection with the plans then initiated for securing an expansion of agricultural output of £100 million by 1951–2, when revised prices were fixed for crops from the 1948 and 1949 harvests, and for milk, eggs, cattle, sheep and pigs, for the period from September, 1947, to 31st March, 1949.
After considering the results of this review the Government have decided to confirm the prices announced on 21st August last and for the same periods. The Government have also agreed that an investigation should be made by the Agricultural Departments and the Ministry of Food, in conjunction with the Farmers' Unions, of certain suspected anomalies in

the detailed price structures for milk and potatoes on the understanding that any adjustments made in consequence of this examination must not result in any increase in the overall average prices of these commodities, and that in the case of potatoes any such adjustment will not be applied before the 1949 crop.

Captain Crookshank: In view of the fact that we did not know this statement was going to be made today, I do not know whether the Minister can say whether it has met with general agreement on the part of those taking part in the negotiations.

Mr. Williams: The statement is based on agreement between the Departments and the National Farmers' Union and, finally, of course, with the Government.

Colonel Gonune-Duncan: Can the Minister say whether that is a United Kingdom statement?

Mr. Williams: Yes.

Mr. York: When the right hon. Gentleman says no increase in the overall prices for milk and potatoes, does he mean no increase in the global sum?

Mr. Williams: Yes.

Mr. Collins: Can the Minister say whether these possible changes in the prices of potatoes may affect the 1948 crop?

Mr. Williams: No, Sir, I do not expect that at all.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Major Milner): I shall be grateful if with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House I may make a personal statement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has been an occasional client of the firm of solicitors of which I am a member. Without my knowledge, and in my absence in the North a week ago, the right hon. Gentleman gave instructions to a partner in the firm on what he, the right hon. Gentleman, felt were very serious reflections alleged to have been made upon him in a B.B.C. broadcast by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). The right hon. Gentleman later saw me, which was the first I heard of the matter.
I observed from the script that other hon. Members of this House were mentioned as having also made the statements of which complaint was made. It occurred to me at once that here were all the possibilities of trouble and recrimination, and that it was extremely desirable to bring about an amicable settlement, and that, knowing all the hon. Members concerned, I could be of help to that end. I had, however, to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham, who felt very strongly about the matter. After discussion the right hon. Gentleman agreed to be content with a withdrawal and an apology, but he was extremely anxious that letters should be despatched at once to the B.B.C. and to the hon. Member. I thereupon dictated and signed letters in the firm's name on the right hon. Gentleman's behalf to both the B.B.C. and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. I later saw the hon. Member who told me that he was not proposing to be represented by any solicitor. I said I thought the matter could be settled amicably and that I was very willing to do anything I could to help, but, of course, the hon. Member must do what he thought right. The hon. Member, however, said he was quite willing to apologise and I then told him that if he would do so, I felt sure that that would dispose of the matter. The hon. Member has since written the right hon. Gentleman a letter of regret and the differences between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member are, I am glad to say, happily composed.
On reflection, however, I have realised that the action taken by me in writing the letter to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, however well intentioned and even in a matter outside the House, might be interpreted as a deviation from the principle of impartiality which should govern the Chair and that I should have been wiser to have referred the right hon.
Gentleman to another solicitor. I need hardly say I fully recognise the absolute necessity for the Chair to be impartial, and that that impartiality should not only exist in fact, but that there should be every appearance of it. I have, therefore, thought it right, Mr. Speaker, to make this statement to the House and to say in so far as there has been departure from that principle I feel I have made an error of judgment and for that, Mr. Speaker, I express my very sincere apologies to the House. I can only ask the House to forgive me.

Mr. Emrys Huģhes: So far as I am involved, I wish to say how much I appreciate the statement made by Mr. Deputy-Speaker and to say there is nothing rankling in my mind for the action he took in the matter.

Mr. Churchill: It would be quite improper for us to debate a statement of this character on this occasion, unless the Prime Minister has any observations to make, but it appears to me that it will require some consideration before it finally passes from the consideration of the House.

BILL PRESENTED

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL

"to make fresh provision with respect to the functions of the Minister of Labour and National Service relating to employment and training for employment; to provide for the establishment of a comprehensive juvenile employment service; to consolidate with amendments certain enactments relating to the matters aforesaid; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Isaacs; supported by Mr. Woodburn, Mr. Tomlinson, the Attorney-General and Mr. Ness Edwards; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 86.

Division No. 102.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Plans-Mills, J. F. F


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Grenfell, D. R
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Attewell, H. C.
Grey, C. F.
Price, M. Philips


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Pritt, D N


Bacon, Miss A.
Gunter, R. J.
Proctor, W. T.


Balfour, A.
Guy, W. H.
Ranger, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon Glenvil
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Barstow, P. G
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Barton, C.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Rideaigh, Mrs. M.


Battley, J. R.
Hardy, E. A.
Robens, A.


Bechervaise, A. E
Harrison, J.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Belcher, J. W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Benson, G.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Beswick, F.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Bing, G. H. C
Hicks, G.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Binns, J.
Hobson, C. R
Royle, C.


Blackburn, A. R.
Holman, P.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Blyton, W. R.
House, G.
Sharp, Granville


Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)
Hoy, J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Shurmer, P.


Bramall, E. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Skinnard, F. W.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Byers, Frank
Janner, B.
Snow, J W


Callaghan, James
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Solley, L. J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Chamberlain, R. A
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Soskice, Sir Frank


Champion, A. J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Sparks, J. A


Chater, D.
Key, C. W.
Stokes, R. R.


Chetwynd, G. R
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Kinley, J.
Stross, Dr. B.


Cocks, F. S.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Coldrick, W
Levy, B. W.
Swingler, S.


Collick, P.
Lipson, D. L.
Sylvester, G. O.


Collindridge, F.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Collins, V. J.
Longden, F,
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Comyns, Dr. L
McAdam, W
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Cove, W. G.
McEntee, V. La T
Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)


Crossman, R. H S.
McGhee, H. G.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Daggar, G.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Davies, P.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McLeavy, F.
Titterington, M. F


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mallalieu, J. P. W
Tolley, L.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Mann, Mrs J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Viant, S. P.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Walkden, E.


Dodds, N. N.
Marquand, H. A.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Warbey, W. N


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Mellish, R. J.
Watkins, T. E.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Edelman, M.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
West, D. G.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mitchison, G. R
White, C, F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, W)
Monslow, W
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Moody, A. S.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Morrison, Rt. Hon H (Lewisham, E.)
Wigg, George


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Moyle, A.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Farthing, W. J.
Murray, J. D.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Field, Capt. W. J.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Fletcher, E G. M. (Islington, E.)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Foot, M M
Oliver, G. H
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Paget, R. T
Woods, G. S


Gallacher, W
Parker, J.
Wyatt, W.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Yates, V. F.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Pearson, A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Glanville, J. E. (Cornett)
Peart, T. F.



Gooch, E G.
Perrins, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Piratin, P.
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins.




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Pickthorn, K.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Birch, Nigel
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hope, Lord J
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boothby, R.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Renton, D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W
Keeling, E. H.
Robinson, Roland


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Linstead, H. N.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Carson, E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Savory, Prof. D. L


Challen, C.
Low, A. R. W.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Channon, H.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Smithers, Sir W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Strauss, H. G (English Universities)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)
Studholme, H. G.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A (P'dd't'n. S.)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
MacLeod, J.
Teeling, William


Cuthbert, W. N.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


De la Bère, R.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Thorp, Brigadier, R. A. F.


Dodds-Parker, A D.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Touche, G. C.


Dower, Col. A. V. G (Penrith)
Maude, J. C.
Ward, Hon. G. R


Erroll, F. J.
Mellor, Sir J.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stono)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Galbraith, Cmdr T. D.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
York, C.


Gammans, L. D.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Glyn, Sir R.
Odey, G. W.



Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimston, R. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Commander Agnew and


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Brigadier Mackeson.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 1) BILL

Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Orders of the Day — POLICE FORCES (CONDITIONS)

3.59 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I rise for the purpose of initiating a Debate on a subject which, in my opinion, badly needs discussion and ventilation in this House—one, indeed, on which we have not had a discussion for very long past, if ever—namely, the reason and the remedy for the serious shortage of recruits in the Metropolitan Police Force and, inferentially and indirectly, in the provincial Police Forces. For two or three generations past we have been assured—and we certainly agree with the assurance—that our police are wonderful. I should like to make the observation that they would be even more wonderful if their numbers were not so woefully short of establishment. My task in raising this important matter is agreeable for two reasons. The first is that there is no party political issue at stake, and the second is that while we on this side of the House differ most strongly with the right hon. Gentleman's political views, we recognise him as a leading and respected Member of our assembly and believe him to be a fair-minded and successful administrator of his high office; therefore, I hope and feel sure that any points raised in this Debate will receive his consideration.
My first point is this: What is the shortage in the Metropolitan Police? There is some difference in regard to the interpretation of the figures, but not, of course, as to the figures themselves, between those with an intimate knowledge of the police, as was brought out in a Debate in another place, and the Government on the extent of the seriousness of the manpower deficit. The figures which have been given, not only in another place but outside, by Lord Trenchard are that there is a shortage in the Metropolitan Police today

of 5,000, or 25 per cent. of the establishment of 19,700. I think that is the largest shortage there has ever been in peace-time.
I wish to make this comment on that shortage: I am very doubtful if the establishment is high enough—I believe that it roughly resembles that of 1939—if allowance is made for the increase alike in population and crime per head of population in the Metropolitan Police area. According to published figures, 1,935 recruits joined the Metropolitan Police Force in 1947, of whom 866 left voluntarily, about 470 of whom were in their first year of service. That represents a serious state of affairs. I do not know the figures for this year. No doubt there has been or will be some temporary enlargement of recruiting due to the fact that the Palestine Police Force is being disbanded. There was an announcement made in one of the newspapers—I do not know whether it is correct—that something like 1,000 men have been drawn from this source.
I should like to draw attention to one sinister aspect of these figures, although "sinister" is perhaps not a very happily chosen word, but there is one aspect of these figures which causes us grave concern, as I am sure it does the right hon. Gentleman. According to the published information, in the last three months of 1947, 388 men joined the Service, and in the same period 120 men left with less than one year's service. The Lord Chancellor in another place—and I am entitled to quote what a Minister of the Crown says in another place—used the phrase that the situation was "pretty grim." He went further than Lord Trenchard, because he said that the shortage was 6,000—not 5,000. The Lord Chancellor also went on to admit that there is a large proportion of recruits resigning voluntarily. He tells us that the situation might appear worse than it was if one failed to take into account that the average intake recruited and retained since the end of the war is 1,500 compared with the average of 860 before the war. Personally, I do not find any satisfaction in these figures. One would have supposed, with demobilisation on the large scale that it was, at the end of the war that there would have been a considerably larger intake than before the war.
Before I come to the remedies I wish to present to the House, I should like


to bring out one or two other facts. I believe that the efficiency, prestige and morale of the force, both Metropolitan and provincial, is as high if not higher than ever it was. If there has been a proportionate increase in undetected crime, it is due, firstly, to the general increase in crime; secondly, to the shortage of police manpower, and, thirdly, to the extent to which the police are employed in interpreting and endeavouring to enforce ever-increasing numbers of governmental rules and orders. I said that I did not want to make a political speech, and I am only stating the facts when I say that if the State insists, by law or Order in Council, on making what had previously been innocent acts criminal, then the police, in endeavouring to enforce these laws and orders, have physically less time to prevent or detect more serious crimes, such as burglary, theft, murder, serious assault and the rest. I strongly repudiate, as I am sure the Government repudiate, certain suggestions which have been made in some quarters that the police are less successful than they were in detecting crime. I believe that they have as good if not a better system than they have ever had for detecting crime.
I think there is far less internal trouble within the Police Force than there was after the last war. There was a certain amount of trouble then, although I do not want to go into details, because it is an unhappy story, and one has to be careful, even after 25 years, not to make a breach in the Official Secrets Act, as I was in office soon after the war and had access to official information. There were certain causes of an external kind which made for trouble in the Police Force at that time. If there is some discontent with conditions today, it in no way affects the value of the service given. There is nothing like "go slow" methods in the Police Force today.
What are the causes of the shortage, and what are the remedies? I have already said that the prestige and morale of the police is as high as ever, and that their efficiency is as good as ever. What, therefore, are the reasons for such a large proportion leaving before they finish one year's service? I believe that the ruling factor is this. In former days, in addition to the honour and prestige of being a policeman wearing what may be called "the King's Blue," in pay and prospects,

including an assured pension, the Police Force, both Metropolitan and provincial, could compete very favourably with any comparable profession. The prestige remains, but pay, pensions and conditions no longer enjoy that favourable priority.
I am told by the former commanding officer of a famous regiment in the Army that a very large proportion of the finest and best N.C.Os. who were in that regiment 20 years ago wanted to go into the Police Force. I believe I am correct in saying that they retained their Army pension, and were open to any form of advancement in the police to which their merits entitled them, and that they were certain to get, at the end of their service, an assured pension. Today, as I have said, there is no such priority and such men leaving the Army can obtain employment, in the Government's service or out of it—in the Government's service is important, as they can obtain employment in certain Ministries as inspectors—which is at least equal, as they think, in pay, prospects and position to what they would get in the police. I would submit to the Home Secretary and the House that an under-manned State organisation such as the police must have incentives to make up for the shortage of manpower, in the same way as the coalmining and agricultural industries. I will not attempt to say how and in what form these incentives should be given, but the whole matter does demand instant and urgent consideration.
My first suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman is that there should be a committee of inquiry, composed of-influential non-official members as well as civil servants or police representatives, to be appointed, not as the Government apparently intend, at the end of this year, but at once. They should be asked to report in time to enable the Government, after considering their recommendations, to state in the King's Speech next October, if they accept the recommendations, that they will put into operation legislative and administrative plans to give effect to that acceptance. I would most earnestly beg the Government not to reject that suggestion. It would please Police Forces—and I am glad to have the assent of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) who has very considerable knowledge of these matters—if they were


told today that there was to be an immediate committee of inquiry with wide powers to inquire into the question of pay, conditions, pensions and promotion.
On this question of methods of promotion there was a committee which reported in March of last year, called the Committee on the Higher Training for the Police Service in England and Wales. I may be wrong, and I do not say it in any spirit of undue criticism, but in my judgment that committee was not composed of a sufficient number of outside people of responsibility. It was too much an official committee and I must say, quite frankly, as has been said elsewhere, that I consider the report of that committee a most dubitable one, which was to some extent biased by its composition of membership. As I have said, it was concerned with higher training in the Police Service with a view to promotion, and I will quote one phrase from their report to support my view that their findings were of very doubtful value. Talking of the proposed police college which is to take the place of the Hendon College, founded by Lord Trenchard, they use this phrase:
In particular, the proposed college is not a contrivance for giving undue weight in the struggle for promotion to youth, brains, personality or scholastic proficiency as compared with proved police ability and leadership.
That I consider to be a most reactionary statement, in complete discord with the whole spirit of promotion as it exists in the three Fighting Services today, where youth, ability and intelligence, irrespective of class, are considered to be the proper passport to rapid promotion. The Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but the effect of the report of this committee, when put fully into operation, as I understand it is to be, is that no man can go to the college to qualify for a higher rank until he has at least four years' service in the Police Force. That is absolutely contrary to what happens in the Army. The clever young private soldier, or N.C.O.—and I welcome it, Tory as I am, because I think it is a proper democratic method of promotion—can go to an O.C.T.U. and obtain promotion by that means. But on the finding of this committee such a man cannot get promotion in the Police Force until he has done at least four years' service. The committee apparently

think it is a good point in their favour when they say that the average age of a man who would be at this college would be 35, which I think is much too old.
I say that the best type of policeman is probably the boy from the humble home who goes to an elementary school, on to a secondary school and then, via scholarship, to a university, then does one year's military training perhaps, and then joins the police. But since he has youth, brains, personality and scholastic ability, he must not, in the opinion of this egregious report, be given undue preference over proved police ability and leadership. I hope that the committee which I am advocating should be appointed now will also consider this question of promotion. I am not saying that everything in the report of the Committee on Higher Training is bad, as it is not, or that everything in the former Police College at Hendon was good. Some of the things done at the college might have been dispensed with but, on the other hand, I think some of the things recommended in this report are not in accord with modern thought.
Now I come to a familiar subject, on which I spoke from this bench recently in relation to the Army. I am informed that one of the principal deterrents—my sources of information are not official—for the shortage of recruits is the poorness of accommodation, especially of married quarters. I made this contention from this bench a week ago, in respect of the Army. The shortage of police married quarters in London is lamentable. I know the point could be made, and I would not resent it, that this shortage existed before the war, and I say that it is no credit to pre-war Governments and Home Secretaries. They are, however, infinitely worse today, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that the Metropolitan Police will be given reasonable priority in the matter of married quarters in comparison with other members of the public. Perhaps "priority" is not a happy word to use, but I hope men will be given more favourable consideration than they are getting today when they apply for married quarters. We are only indirectly concerned with this matter, but I think it is in Order to make a reference to it as the salary of the Inspector-General comes under the appropriation.
The position in the provinces is also very bad. There, the chief constables and watch committees of some places have begged their housing authorities to provide married quarters, but those authorities have treated the matter as being of no importance at all.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede) indicated assent.

Earl Winterton: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, and I am glad to have his assenting nod, to say something rather strong on that subject. I hope that he will give an assurance that he will discuss the whole matter with the Minister of Health, who has the power in this matter.
There are other grievances which are important, although some may seem of a minor character. I am told that the police do not like point duty in London or any-'where else. I think that I remember an announcement which was made in the House at the time the traffic lights were first introduced by the then Home Secretary, that, apart from the efficiency and efficacy of the new system, it would relieve the police of a duty which they very much disliked—having to control traffic. It is an arduous and unpleasant duty and a great deal has been done to remove it, but not enough. There are places in London where, in my opinion, traffic lights could be well substituted for police on point duty, if there was more relationship or more liaison—I do not know whose fault it is—between the Home Office and the traffic authority..
I can give an instance in my own locality. I live in the neighbourhood of Victoria Station on the South side—and I might say, in passing, that it is becoming a rather roughish neighbourhood. We have had three murders within 600 yards of the house where my wife and I live, of which two were detected and one undetected in the last three years—and I resent seeing four policemen on point duty every day within 200 yards of Victoria Station. I believe the traffic lights, could perfectly well deal with the situation there. I know that there are some places where it is impossible to have traffic lights and where policemen must be on point duty; but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to go into the matter again, or get his Under-Secretary to do so. I ask him to go through

this whole question of policemen on point duty in London with a sieve, so to speak, to see if there cannot be a reduction. I think that the police would be very glad to know that that matter was receiving attention.
I do not want to keep the House any longer, and I will sum up by saying that what I want from the right hon. Gentleman—and it would seem that the House is in general agreement—is the affirmation of his immediate determination to inquire into and, if he possibly can, remove the reasons for the shortage of recruits. I would say that few of the multifarious and most onerous duties which he has to perform can be of more importance than the position and welfare of the Metropolitan Police. If he can solve this problem of obtaining enough recruits for the Police Force, and keeping them, by the example he will give, he will greatly encourage the provincial forces to do likewise, and he will, if he can achieve this and find the remedy, put the Police Force in a much more favourable position to get recruits than they are today. He will also embellish and make noteworthy his term of office.
Many people have stood at this Box and at the Box opposite and expressed their praise of the British police. I do not know if I can say anything particularly new. I think that it is not a sign jingoism or of an undue sense of patriotism to say that the British police and those of the Dominions, Colonies and a very few Western European countries certainly enjoy honourable distinctions over those of every other country. They are not appointed on political grounds; they carry no lethal weapons; they do not accept bribes from political parties, criminals or anyone else, save perhaps in a few individual cases. They use the minimum of force in making arrests or dispersing crowds. A force with these admirable qualities needs every commendation and encouragement from this House, and I hope that as a result of this Debate which I have initiated, they will get it.
Whenever one has been abroad, and has seen what I will describe—I hope without offence to any citizen of any foreign country who may be present here—as the lavishly embellished "cops" looking very grim and aggressive, and has then returned to this country and here seen on


the British airport or on the quay when looking over the side of the ship, a single, quiet, confident, courteous figure in blue, who is all that is required to keep order here, one says to oneself, "I am pleased and proud to be back in this country." One feels that one can confront with more courage the nauseating coffee and terrifying meals at the station buffet and in the train, and one can say that, although our cooking is the worst in the world, undoubtedly our Police Force is the best.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: There have been two broad streams of thought in regard to the criminal. One is the stream which believes in severe punishment, and the other the stream which follows the way of reformation. The broad stream of severe punishment flowed freely and widely a century ago. That stream today has become a trickle on both sides of this House. I think that we are all more or less united on the Criminal Justice Bill, which is passing through this House, in our desire to encourage by every means the reformation of criminals. The danger today is that, with the great increase of crime, there will be perhaps a wave of indignation from the public, which will tend to make the present stream of reformation hesitant. That would be, in my submission, a deplorable thing.
There is no doubt that we suffer a great shortage in our Police Force. In answer to an hon. Member last September the figures given of the permitted Police Establishment in September, 1947, were 66,935. The Police Establishment last September was in fact 54,324. That is a shortage of 12,611 in the Police Force of the whole country. I see in "The Times" today that the shortage is put at 15,000, and I am told that if we include Scotland the figure is even larger. As I came into the House today, I asked the first constable who gave me a smile and a touch of his hat, "What is wrong, in your opinion, with the Police Force?" I thought that I would get a quick response. He said, "First, petty regulations; secondly, poor pay; and, thirdly, there is not much chance of promotion." That was a spontaneous reply from an officer doing duty within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. I would ask the Home Secretary to ponder that reply from the man on the beat.
We all know that it is essential that we should have discipline in the Police Force, but good discipline is ruined by pettifogging regulations. In my view there are far too many chief constables in this country, who take an unnecessarily severe view of these matters. I would urge the Home Secretary to use such influences as he possesses to see that the standard of the best chief constables is set for those who have the worst standard. Recently there came into my possession a report of the Chief Constable of Blackburn, and he sets out the facts and conditions in that city. He says that of the new appointments during the year under review 19 police officers were recruited. Fourteen of them were men and four of them resigned before the end of 12 months. That is not a very satisfactory thing to happen. The chief constable, Mr. Looms, goes on to say:
In spite of every effort made to attract recruits and the formation of district Recruiting Boards, the effective strengths of the Police Forces of the country still remain considerably under establishments, and in this borough there was a deficiency on 3rst December, 1947, of 25, as against 28 on the same date last year.
In that city they had only made good on three out of 28 possible appointments in the course of 12 months. He has no doubt as to what the real cause of the shortage is, for he says:
A serious difficulty experienced in the recruitment of men for appointment of probationary constables in the Borough Force has been the shortage of housing accommodation.
I should like to stress that. He goes on:
Many of the men appointed or seeking appointments are married men with families who come from districts outside Blackburn.
Though I am dealing with Blackburn because I have this report, I feel that this must also be so in most police districts.
Nine married men have been forced to obtain accommodation either in lodgings or in apartments.
That is not a satisfactory state of affairs.
By reason of housing shortage, in six instances I have been compelled to ignore the condition of service which states that a Police Officer must reside within the Police District in which he serves, namely, in the County Borough of Blackburn.
Six men had to travel daily from outside the Borough to carry out their duties. He finishes by saying:
I am convinced that recruiting would be accelerated and the serious deficiency in the effective strength of the Force alleviated if the housing problem were not so acute.


There is no ground for hoping that within two or three years we shall catch up with the housing problem of this country, and, therefore, I would reinforce what the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has said. There must be some—and I use the word without hesitation—priority for police officers. The citizens of a police district are all engaged in separate avocations, many of them privately employed, many of them employed by Government departments, but each and every person in the police area depends for security and protection upon the police constable. That gives the police officer some prior claim for housing accommodation, because the whole of the borough order and security depends upon the strength of the police force. I notice that the Lord Chancellor in another place also ascribes the chief difficulty in recruiting to the housing situation.
As the noble Lord indulged in a personal reminiscence, perhaps I may be allowed so to indulge. I have been burgled twice in three months within the Metropolitan area—[Laughter]—and now it is rather beyond a joking position because, though we may face that with a smile, our women folk do not look at it like that if they are confronted with difficulty and insecurity and if every time they put a key into the door they wonder whether they are going to find someone inside or that the house has been forced. This is a situation which calls for prompt action.
I hope the Home Secretary will be able to expedite this Committee of Inquiry. I observe that in another place some technical reason was given why the committee should not sit until 1949. We cannot wait as long as that to recruit the Police Force, because, as I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks, though most of us in this House now believe in the way of reformation because we apply our minds to criminology and penology, the great mass of the people outside, unless they are protected and protected soon, will begin to agitate for severe punishment, particularly in respect of house-breaking burglary, shop-breaking and warehouse breaking. I am sure the Home Secretary is fully alive to the problem, and that he will accede to the suggestion which has come from the Front Bench opposite and get this matter going without any further delay.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also speak to the Minister of Health and see that the housing programme can be settled, for if that were done we should see a welcome recruitment to the Police Force and thus a diminution in criminal statistics. As "The Times" said today, those who have always pleaded for reformation rather than punishment have urged that the really effective way to reduce the criminal statistics is to have an effective Police Force, which will detect as high a percentage of crime as possible. The certainty of conviction which will face the offender if apprehended will be a much better deterrent than any kind of severe punishment.

4.38 p.m.

General Sir George Jeffreys: My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has dealt principally with the problem of the strength of the Metropolitan Police, and important as that is—and no one would minimise its importance—the strength of the provincial forces is perhaps only slightly less important. I am a member of a provincial police authority, the Hampshire County Authority. Most provincial authorities are very definitely short of numbers necessary for the efficient carrying out of the policing of their respective areas. There is a shortage of practically all provincial police forces, and, because of that shortage, there must be some very definite risk.
Apart from the shortages in the police, there is quite definitely an increase in crime, not only in petty crime but also in serious crime, and the quantity of work done by the police is not made any easier to deal with by the variety of functions which have been created by that galaxy of orders and prohibitions which have been introduced in late years and which cannot be described as crime, but with which the police have to deal and breaches of which they are supposed to prevent. The police in point of numbers are definitely overworked. They cannot cope with the work which they have to do, not to mention the work which they ought to be able to do.
Recruiting varies among the various Police Forces. Some forces are more popular than others and attract more recruits. Police Forces are not allowed by the Home Office to accept all the suitable recruits who offer themselves. In my


county of Hampshire—I have no doubt this is true also of other counties—we are given a quota which we may accept in any year. Recruits offering themselves beyond that quota go to a pool and are offered employment in other Police Forces. Some recruits only want to go into their own county force. I know actual cases of men with good qualifications who applied to enter the Hampshire county force and had to be refused admission because the quota had already been reached. They declined to apply to enter any other force. Consequently, those recruits were lost to the police. I do not say that that is entirely the reason for the shortage of recruits, but it is undoubtedly part of the reason. I quite understand the idea of the Home Office. They do not want any Police Force to go short while a surplus of recruits is applying for admission to other forces, but I am not sure that the plan works out in the best possible way, because many recruits, when they cannot go where they want to go, are lost to the police altogether.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I did not quote the further statement of the Chief Constable of Bolton. In his case, the force were not able to get even the quota they were allowed. Would the hon. and gallant Member agree that if there were housing accommodation many of those recruits might be willing to go elsewhere?

Sir G. Jeffreys: I was coming to that point a little later. I think the hon. and learned Member will find that I entirely agree with him. There is no doubt that there is a definite shortage of recruits all over the country. There is another point to be remembered. A great many policemen resign after a comparatively short time in the force, and sometimes after a very short time. There must be a definite cause for these resignations and it must be looked for in the conditions of service. I do not think there is discontent or bad treatment, or anything of that kind at all, certainly not in my county. I do not believe that such discontent or bad treatments exists in any force that I have heard of.
In connection with the conditions of service, we must look first at the pay. The present scale of basic pay compared

extremely favourably, when it was laid down, with the pay in civilian occupations, certainly for the young man with no special skill and of good character and physique. Great increases have taken place in the pay given in every trade and occupation since then, and police pay does not compare so favourably, and in a good many cases does not compare favourably at all, with civilian pay. That is the first matter to which the Home Secretary will have to devote his attention.
The next points are hours of duty, time off, and leave. Policemen's wives come into these questions quite a lot. Some policemen get married very young. Their wives complain that they do not see enough of their husbands and do not think their husbands have as much time off as other occupations in civilian life, particularly at night. The wives often object very strongly to night duty because it takes their husbands away from home or prevents them from going to places of amusement. I believe that these influences considerably affect recruiting and are responsible for policemen leaving the service at an unduly early age.
This matter is very difficult to deal with. Night duty is obviously essential for the police, and must be taken into consideration. The position might be met by special pay for night duty, or higher rates of pay altogether, as some compensation. Everybody will agree that the first duty of the police is the prevention of crime. It is essential that the Police Force must be adequate in numbers and that there must be an adequate number on duty. Too much crime is able to take place simply because there is nobody looking on and able to stop it. Too many people in these days have not succeeded in grasping, either at school or elsewhere, the essential principles of right and wrong.
Now I come to the very great disadvantage related to housing accommodation, certainly in my own county. It is extremely difficult to find houses for the police. It has not been considered necessary by the Ministry of Health to grant priority for the building of houses for policemen. We have a large police housing programme in Hampshire, but we are not able to get on with it as we cannot obtain the necessary priorities


from the Ministries of Health and Supply to obtain the materials. Meanwhile some of our police are inadequately housed and some are not housed at all and have to make do in lodging. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to prevail upon his Ministerial colleagues to give a real priority to police authorities for the provision of houses necessary to house police adequately.
There ought to be an inducement held out to men from the Fighting Services to join the police. Men who have served an inadequate time in one of the services to qualify them for a pension might be allowed to join a Police Force and to count their years of service in the Fighting Force as part of their qualification for a police pension. A man who has served four, five or six years in one of the Fighting Forces should have them reckoned for pension in the police. I do not wish to detain the House further. I would merely repeat that in other Forces besides the Metropolitan Police Force there are grave shortages and the causes of those shortages must obviously be looked for in something to do with the pay and conditions of service. I have mentioned a few points to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will devote attention. I feel confident that if some of them were really attended to, better recruiting would ensue.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Skinnard: I am emboldened to join in the Debate because I have had brought very strongly to my attention by members of the Metropolitan Police Force and also by members of provincial Police Forces, particularly in the South-West of England, the truth of the statements already made by hon. Members as to the present deterrents to men joining the various forces which are so badly undermanned. I would like to join issue with the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) on the recommendations of the Committee which he criticised. That Committee recommended a two-streamed recruitment of police to higher training centres. One of those streams was to draw in the young able new recruit who might have been in the force only a month or two, but at the some time provision was to be made for older, experienced officers who had gained valuable experience and similar qualities through actual work in the Police Force.
At the moment the trouble of loss of strength seems to be in the number of men who leave the forces during the first year of their service. Most recruits to the Police Force now are already married. In the past that was not so, and the men lived in section houses as bachelors and got their initial training, and later on, having gained experience on the beat, they got married and moved into houses among the community they serve. Now we get men married, and even with children, coming in as recruits. They are unable to obtain accommodation suitable for their families. There are equal opportunities as regards salary and status in other occupations, and they leave.
If it were possible to put everything right for these young recruits and keep them in the service—even give them houses and provide them, as the noble Lord wished, with a monopoly of the opportunities of promotion—we should have just as difficult a position with the older constables who would naturally resent the closing to them of all avenues of promotion. It seems to me that the Committee has done the right thing. It is wise to effect a compromise, to encourage initiative among the recruits by giving early opportunities for promotion and at the same time to reward conscientious service and valuable experience by other opportunities of promotion. After all, when the men go to the higher training centre, they enter on an equal basis, and we shall get a balanced force.
The principal objection to the old Hendon Police College among the older and more experienced members of the Police Force, was that They saw promotion going for ever. They were to have an officer class, who had never known the asperities of the beat and the fatigues of point duty, being put above them and commanding them, and they felt they would have no chance of getting into that class. The new idea is a much better one because we shall balance the various qualities which are needed. I cannot see the objection to it; indeed, I welcome it.
I have already agreed with those hon. Members who have mentioned the difficulty of keeping the policeman once he is recruited because he cannot be adequately housed. If there is any basis for our belief—and I think there is—that our Police Force is second to none, and probably better than any, in the world, it is


because it has never been a force apart from the people which it serves. If I may follow the example of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Peters-field (Sir G. Jeffreys), in speaking of his own provincial force, in my county of Devon we regarded the village policeman as one of ourselves and gave him as much respect as we gave to those other well known characters of the village—the vicar, the Wesleyan minister and the schoolmaster. They were a quartette of public servants who lived among us, were known to us all and whose children played with us, and we did not feel in any way apart from them. The value of our Police Force is that policemen are not regarded as people to be feared, but as people to be consulted, people who are readily accessible and, when off duty, just members of the community—and very highly respected ones at that.
That is why we should look very carefully at the character of any special provision it might be thought desirable to make in the way of housing for the police. I would very much deprecate any suggestion that we should have anything in the nature of barracks specially provided for the police. We do not want any glorified section houses with married quarters to keep the police apart from the community. After all, the policeman is never off duty and therefore it is much better that, as far as possible, he should live in the area he serves. Instead of having to go to one street to find all the police in an area, we ought to be as likely to find a policeman in our own road. Because he is never off duty, the policeman should never be segregated as regards his housing.
The way out is for an agreement to be made with housing authorities whereby there shall be a definite allocation of houses for police. When a housing estate is built today, we put up a special kind of house with a waiting room and rooms which can be converted into a surgery for a doctor. We make provision for people with various jobs. Why should it not be the same for the Police Force? After all, the policeman does not need special housing provision. He needs an ordinary house like any other citizen, but he should have a definite allocation, and houses for the police should be scattered throughout the area where the police are required.
It is a regrettable omission that nothing has yet been said in praise of the way the

authorities are making up for the difficulties by greater scientific training and especially by making our police more mobile and effective. I had recently to draw attention to a lack of adequate supervision in a suburban area where small children were being molested. It was rather difficult in that quarter to have a resident constable or a regular beat which would serve the purpose I had in mind, but because of the use of the latest scientific methods of police detection and the mobility of the present force, the difficulty was met within 24 hours, and that neighbourhood has been considerably cleaned up. I do not want us to put all our faith in large numbers of police, for, after all, it is the ubiquity and the mobility of the police which will defeat the modern criminal. If you know where a constable is to be stationed, obviously you will not commit your burglary anywhere near—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I meant the burglar——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member is making grave charges against me.

Mr. Skinnard: You will admit, I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I made a graceful withdrawal just in advance of your rising. The burglar, obviously, if he is an enterprising burglar, will not commit his burglary where he knows a man in blue is likely to make a point, or where he knows a man in blue is resident. He will go where he thinks he knows the police are not, and therefore the job of the policeman is to make sure that he is where the burglar least expects him. Mobility and ubiquity depend on a fairly constant stream of young recruits, because it has to be recognised that police work is of different kinds and that each policeman will do different jobs at different periods of his service. So it must not be thought that the policeman is a stock figure doing all the jobs required for the service. That is why I welcome the new type of selection for promotion, so that the various parts of higher police work can be performed adequately by differing types of officer, and selected both from the older men and the eager new recruits, who will not stay in unless they are promoted—that is true of some ambitious young men who come into the police force that they get disheartened if they do not get quick promotion——

Mr. Ede: It is just as true of schoolmasters.

Mr. Skinnard: I agree that it is also true of the profession which the Home Secretary himself adorned and, indeed, it is a great pleasure to the teaching profession that the member of the greatest distinction in the profession at the moment occupies the position of Secretary of State for the Home Department. However, he only reached that eminence by getting out of the teaching profession. The same applies to some equally ambitious young police constables who realise that their only way of becoming the head of a great Department of State is to get out of the Police Service as quickly as possible.
This, I am sure, is not the wish of any hon. Member of this House. We want to keep the young, keen, intelligent recruit with initiative and zeal, but it is equally important that he should not be dissatisfied either with the conditions of his present service or with the prospects of advancement. Very well, then, the part of the Committee's report which provides an institution for testing for promotion will give him his chance, but, again, we do not want the older constables dropping out and taking other jobs because they find they have no avenue of promotion. So, if there can only be allocation of housing on a definite basis for the Police Force, if a balanced form of recruitment for promotion is assured, then I think that the difficulty of the Police Force not getting a superior salary to other professions will not prove such a big drawback to those who wish to serve their community in the blue of the Police Force.

5.5 p.m.

Sir Arthur Salter: I would like to say a few words about the background to the specific problem we are discussing today. We are, of course, always engaged in a continuous war against crime and in this war, as in the other kind of war, it is essential to measure the adequacy of the defensive army, not only by reference to its own past standards but in relation to the strength and character of the army of attack with which it has to deal. I do not differ from what the noble Lord said as to the skill and morale of the Police Force at present in relation to its own past and its own standards but I felt a little more doubtful when he said that they are now as successful as ever in detecting crime—not that I allege that they are less skilful than they have been,

but because I think they are up against a tougher proposition.
We have to face the fact that in this war the armies of defence are not at present winning against the attacking armies. These forces of attack are of different kinds, analogous to guerilla bands, the disciplined commandos, the individual enterprise of bandits and so on. For reasons with which we are all familiar—largely resulting from the war, the present economic conditions of this country, inflation, and so on—they have been increased in strength. As against that, the defending armies have been depleted. If the Home Secretary would now make a comparison between the number of burglaries and the number of houses of the kind most attractive to burglars, and would also consider in what proportion the burglars have been caught and the goods recovered, the result would be startling. I do not wish to hazard anything like an exact proportion, but I suggest that, in a place like London, for considerable categories of houses it is probably rather the exception not to have been burgled in the last two years than to have been burgled, and also that of the burglaries that took place, a very small proportion of the criminals have been caught, or, of the goods they took, recovered. That was what I meant when I said that at present, whatever be the precise reasons, the armies of defence are not winning.
There are several causes and several remedies for that, but it is clear that in some way or other the Police Force must be made more attractive in relation to other forms of occupation. I do not wish to enter into a detailed comparison of rates of pay, and so on, in the Police Force as compared with other occupations. I have not the knowledge to do that, and it is a difficult thing to discuss in detail in a Debate like this. I remember, however, as older Members will remember, one extremely unfortunate episode in the history of our Police Force many years ago when it was proved afterwards that what happened was largely due to a culpable delay in the Home Office in dealing with what were legitimate and indeed intolerable grievances. I do not suggest that there is an equal laxity or culpable delay at this moment, but it is clear that the Police Force is not attractive enough to recruits of the right type. Obviously, there are difficulties, and money may be involved.
In that connection I may perhaps recall to the House a fact of which not all hon. Members may be aware, namely, that in many, if not most, burglaries, the principal financial beneficiary of the burglary is neither the burglar nor the receiver, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his official capacity. What happens is that an article of value is taken; whether it is insured or not, when it is replaced one has to pay not only what would be the cost of the article, which may be more or less covered by insurance, but also 125 per cent. Purchase Tax. That means that every time the Home Secretary fails to do his job successfully in protecting the individual citizen, his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets a very handsome premium—that is not "Pay as You Earn," but "Pay As You Do Not Earn" —to say that it is unearned increment is an understatement. It means that the victim has really paid three times over for an article of value; first, when he bought it, then over a period of years its value in insurance premiums, and then, when he replaces it he pays not only its intrinsic value but also 100 per cent. or 125 per cent. by way of Purchase Tax. It is certainly rather hard on a victim, who is not acquiring an additional article, but only replacing one, when police protection has been insufficient, that his loss should be doubled by this payment to the Treasury.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: In my case I am happy to inform the right hon. Gentleman, the insurance company—a tariff company—paid replacement value. It may be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that case may fail to benefit because that loss of mine will be set against the company's profits as well as expenses.

Sir A. Salter: That may be so, and one may insure against replacement value. But in that case it means that the victim has paid more over a period by way of premiums. One way or another the victim is paying more by additional premiums or Purchase Tax on replacements. I do not, of course, suggest that the Home Secretary will be so concerned to give a bonus to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this fact will be a dis-incentive to him in his effort to improve the police, but it is a fact worth mentioning.
As to the remedies, as far as there is a difficulty in fully replenishing the Police

Force, something can be done, as the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said, by relieving them of some of their duties. A very considerable part of the duties of the police are at present in relation to things which have nothing to do with crime, such as point duty, and so on.

Mr. Ede: There are breaches of the traffic laws.

Sir A. Salter: Quite apart from watching for breaches of the traffic law, there are duties which are scarcely related to crime, such as point duty which might be replaced in some cases by traffic lights, and so on. In addition, police are engaged in seeing school children across the streets, and things of that kind. Then there is the great mass of new crimes. It would be interesting to have a statement about the effective priority measured in terms of manpower, given by the police to the new crimes, such as that of driving a car outside its prescribed routes, on the one hand, and the more serious crimes, such as burglary. The results might be striking. I think that a change in priority might help in stopping some of the more serious crimes.
The police have, I think, some responsibility in regard to publicity, because the Press get information from the police. Great publicity is given to the burglary, but comparatively little to the detection of the criminal, the punishment, or the recovery of the goods. The impression is given that the criminal always gets away with it successfully, and that is not all. In one case with which I was intimately acquainted there was very prominent publicity and one paper remarked that all the furs were taken, but the jewels were untouched. I said at the time, "That is a public invitation to the next gang to come and get them." The invitation was accepted within three months. Something might perhaps be done to influence the Press in the matter of the publicity they give in such cases.
Lastly, I come to my most substantial suggestion. While it is of the utmost importance to replenish the Police Force along the lines on which the Home Secretary is now working, I do not think that will be enough. Among the serious criminals today I believe there are highly organised skilled, specialist criminals with a chain of organisation running right


through to the receiver and methods of disposal. I do not think any increase of the ordinary Police Force will, by itself, deal with this largely new problem—new in its present extent. I make this suggestion to the Home Secretary. In this war, as in the first war, it was proved that we had a comparatively small but very important number of people who showed a kind of genius in the services of military intelligence, naval intelligence, espionage and counter-espionage work, in penetrating the plans of the enemy and discovering their secrets. I suggest that the association of some of the best of these with the higher organisation of the force for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible might be an extremely valuable addition to the police system.

5.18 p.m.

Mrs. Braddock: It has been said on many occasions that the point of view one takes in reference to a commodity depends upon the side of the counter one is on. I have been on both sides of the counter. I have been in a position in which I have seen the Police Force charging with batons drawn upon me, and I have also been a member of the Liverpool Watch Committee for the past 12 or 13 years, on the other side of the counter.
The situation today is one in which we are demanding from the Police Force something different from what we demanded 30 years ago. In those days, we demanded very tall policemen, with plenty of brawn and very little brains. Now we are demanding of our Police Force plenty of brains, plenty of intelligence and plenty of ways of dealing with different types of crime with which they come into contact. It is true to say that the types of prosecutions with which they are concerned demand a knowledge of a tremendous number of subjects and of the general well-being of the people with whom they are dealing. They approach the whole question quite differently from the old days. We have to face an entirely different situation.
In regard to the Police Force with which I am concerned, there have been numerous requests to know what is the matter, and why men do not stay in the force. I have been surprised at the small things which deter men from remaining in the force. For instance, one of the

matters they put to me is that they are continually in uniform, that they have to leave their home, in uniform, to report for duty, and that they cannot go anywhere until they have been home and taken off their uniforms. That adds considerably to their working day. If places could be arranged in their stations where they could change out of their uniforms when they go off duty, so that they could leave their uniforms there and be able to proceed wherever they wanted to go, it would be a small matter, but it would add considerably to the amenities of the police.
Another matter concerns good canteen accommodation. The number of policemen who suffer from stomach troubles is appalling. It is due to the fact that they are on shift duty. Often they do not get a good hot meal at any time during the day, and when they do get hot meals, they are at different hours. If it were possible, particularly in industrial areas, where men have to stand and walk about in very bad weather, to ensure that every one of them, on whatever shift of duty he might be, could obtain an easily accessible hot meal during his turn of duty, it would mean—although again it is a small matter—a tremendous lot in improving the life of the policeman.
The question of promotions has been dealt with by many hon. Members. That is something about which the ordinary policeman has considerable feeling—the question of what he has to do, how long he has to remain in the force, what particular important and additional attributes he must have before anybody considers him sufficiently suitable for promotion. The number of senior posts in the force is a matter which requires attention, because if there are only a few senior posts there are but few possibilities of promotion. As we are extending the boundaries of industrial areas, and the length of walk which the policeman has on the outskirts of these areas, we ought to be able to increase the number of senior positions in large Police Forces in order to give the men a better opportunity of promotion.
I wish now to refer to the standard of conditions in the police stations. I have been amazed at the completely deplorable conditions in some of them in industrial areas. In my own city for example, there is little provision for recreation, and in most of the police stations the places


where the men have to sit down to have a cup of tea when they come in have been converted from some of the old cell accommodation which is not being used. In very few places have new stations been built with any decent accommodation for the men.
Another important matter is the height of the police—how tall a man has to be before he can be considered as an applicant for the Police Force. In these days of modern ju-jitsu, I do not think it is quite so necessary for an applicant to be very tall. There are men of excellent physique and mental ability who have not the necessary height to join a Police Force. I know that in the London area the minimum height for applicants has been reduced, but in other areas a man still has to be very much above the average height before he can be considered as an applicant for the force.
Another question is that of transport over the distance which a policeman has to travel from his home to his point of duty or to the station at which he has to report. Under present transport conditions, when many policemen are living on the outskirts of industrial areas, the difficulty of obtaining transport to the central area, if they are attached to a central area station, is terrific. In Liverpool we have had to deal with that position in order to keep some of our men in the force. We have had to make arrangements for transport for them from the outside areas into the central area of the city. These matters may seem fairly small, but they matter to the man who is considering whether he will join a Police Force or not.
There is the question of rates of pay. They have been much increased, and are much better than they were 10 years ago. The question of rent allowances and the taxation of those allowances have been dealt with on numerous occasions, and they are being dealt with constantly. Yet the absolute standard of salary of the new recruit on joining a Police Force is insufficient to attract men. There are areas, where there are docks which present additional difficulties to the police, where they are responsible for policing the dock areas. There are further difficulties because there is such a tremendous amount of stealing going on at the docks. That means that additional numbers of police have to be put on duty to watch the transport to and

from the dock area. Instead of having a set rate for a new recruit to the force, or a definite flat rate at various levels, there ought to be additional pay for additional difficult duties, such as dock duties.
Housing has been referred to, and it has a most important effect on applicants. There are policemen whose wives were evacuated from industrial areas during the blitz, and their husbands have been unable to find accommodation in their areas to which their wives could return. A terrifically high moral standard which is expected from a man when he goes into the force, and we must realise that if his wife and family are separated from him and have to live at some distant place because of evacuation, with no possibility of their being able to return, that man will be discontented and will not pay the same attention to his work as he would do if he had his family with him.
The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) referred to married quarters. I do not think that at the present time we should proceed on the lines of building barracks or areas where there is a whole section of police. Our intention ought to be to spread out our police in the new housing areas at decent intervals, so that they can take part in the ordinary life of the community, rather than to bring them together in police barracks or at police headquarters or——

Earl Winterton: I entirely agree. I was referring to the action of local authorities who should supply the accommodation.

Mrs. Braddock: I quite agree. I do not think we should envisage for a moment the idea of building vast premises where there are none other than policemen living, unless they are places to be used as police training centres. The whole idea of the life of a policeman has altered very considerably. He is now part of the community, and has a right to take part in all community affairs. He obtains more respect and attention and assistance if he is living as part of the community in either one of the older housing areas or one of the newer housing areas.
The questions of food, uniform and housing may not seem very important,


but they are things that a man will consider when he is thinking of what particular profession he intends to enter. In considering whether to become a police recruit he does take into account the amenities and the advantages which he can obtain for himself and his family. If he sees that there are all disadvantages, even a rate of wage which is possibly very high will not entice him into the police service. These are not matters of high policy, but they are things which should be considered if we are to attempt to recruit into the Police Forces of this country the numbers of men which are so urgently needed.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I apologise for having a sore throat, but there is a moral even in this sore throat. It is the result of shortage of labour here in this House, and the shortage here last week was due to unreasonable delay in dealing with the grievances of a particular body of workmen. We have to deal without delay with the grievances of the police. What I wish to say can be compressed into three sentences: one, the police situation is very bad; two, the police situation, in all human probability, will get worse; three, we ought to get together quickly to make it better.
We have been told that we are something like 20,000 short of full strength, if the Police Forces of the country are taken as a whole. As other hon. Members have said, that shortage is partly responsible for the failure to keep up with the crime wave. It is not responsible for the crime wave. Whenever there is a great war, there is a partial collapse of ordinary standards of morality, and when a great war is followed by a prolonged period of scarcity, that collapse in the ordinary standards of morality tends to last very much longer than it did after the first world war. While the shortage of police is not the cause of the crime wave, it is a great obstacle to dealing with it.
I would suggest to the Home Secretary—and I do not think he will disagree with me about the weight of the argument—that we must expect in the years to come that the calls on the police will be very much heavier than they are today. What I mean by that is this. We have been given plain notice by the Communist Party in this country that

they intend to wreck the Marshall Plan if they can. They intend to wreck whatever Government plan there may be, at the moment, in the shape of the White Paper, to stabilise conditions in England. They will use their penetration into the trade unions to make trouble. The upshot of that process may be seen in today's report in the "Daily Mirror," of the situation brought about in Queensland, where there is a Labour Government, by quite a small minority of Communists infiltrating into the trade union life of the country and using their key positions to precipitate trouble. There is in the "Daily Mirror" today—it is not a paper for which I personally write——

Mr. David Jones: It is all the better for that.

Mr. W. J. Brown: —there is on the front page an example of what can happen, and what a heavy and responsible burden can be placed on the police, when there is a determined minority who mean to make trouble anyway.
Everyone taking part in this Debate wishes to be helpful to the Home Secretary, and not to make his difficulties greater. I suggest to the Home Secretary that he should start his consideration of the whole problem of the police by a recognition of the fact that, first, we are far too short of policemen, and second, that the burden placed upon the police hereafter will, in all human probability, be substantially greater than it is now. In other words, I do not think that the nominal shortage of 20,000, if that be the right figure, reflects the real shortage that we must attempt to cater for, if we are to have regard to the risks and difficulties of the position.
Why have we this position? I think the answer can be put in a single sentence. Circumstances have so changed as to diminish the attractive power of those elements in the conditions of Police Service which have hitherto served us extremely well. There are three elements in particular—security, pay and pensions. The element of security was at one time in the Civil Service, which I know well, the teaching profession which the right hon. Gentleman knows well, and the Police Service which I know indifferently well and he knows extremely well—a strong attractive power, particularly in


times of insecurity. But if circumstances arise which provide full employment for pretty well all the people the element of security loses a good deal of its pulling power. Similarly, with a pension. At the time when there was no State pension scheme, or any considerable State pension scheme, other than the original 5s. a week with which Lloyd George started back in 1912, the attracting power of the police pensions was very considerable. But with the greater provision made in the ordinary social service legislation in the country, the police pension loses its relative attractiveness. I do not say it has no attraction, but I do say that its attraction has diminished.
With regard to wages, it is true that we have adjusted them and I am very glad to recognise that. But when the policeman weighs up the disadvantages of his daily life against the slightly more advantageous financial treatment he gets as compared with what he might receive elsewhere in the labour market, the slightly additional value in money is not enough to keep him in. After he has had some months of all the inconveniences of the police life, with its various domestic difficulties, the difficulties of night duty and sometimes the pin-pricking discipline he thinks the additional wage no compensation. I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would give attention to that. The police have to be a disciplined force, but they have not to be a "schoolmarmed" force. There are chief constables in England whose treatment of what we should regard as trivial things create a sense of resentment that even a bigger grievance might not create. We have to replace the niggling "parade-ground" sense of discipline with a social and civic sense of discipline in relation to the Police Forces of this country. Those attractive things which I have mentioned have largely lost their attractive power. If we are to recruit a Police Service adequate to our needs we have to consider how to replace those things, or to provide something in their stead.
I am not an opponent of the Government's White Paper on wages. I do not see what else they could do on wages but what they are doing. But I regard this case of the police as one of the cases that ought to be an exception to the ordinary

rules. I would certainly adopt the suggestion that where men can be recruited from the Army the Government should allow their previous military service to count towards pension in the Police Force. That, I am sure, is a considerable element in a man's calculation. I would certainly improve the pensions system. The Minister is taking power to do that under the Bill we discussed the other day. Above all, I would certainly provide powers to deal with injury and death—the injury of a man and the widowhood of his wife in case he is killed. That I regard as an extremely urgent matter.
But I do not think that we ought to allow police conditions to drift from year to year, and then, every so many years, have a Parliamentary row and the appointment of a committee of inquiry. I want to see proper machinery provided within the police force itself for the day-to-day regulation of conditions of employment and the settlement of grievances as they arise. It is altogether anomalous in the 20th century that we should have to wait for a Consolidated Fund Bill, and a formal Debate on police services, before we can get an adequate discussion of the difficulties in the Police Services in this country. I have begged many Home Secretary's—and I will continue to do so as long as my voice will last—to create the necessary machinery for the settlement of grievances and difficulties as they arise instead of allowing them to accumulate over a period of time, and then having a Parliamentary row and the appointment of a special committee of inquiry or something of that kind.
I am not against the proposal of my noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) for an immediate committee on this matter. I support that, because there are arrears to clear up. But when we have cleared up the arrears I beg that we shall have proper machinery for dealing with these things day by day. The noble Lord knows, as I know, that the degree of a grievance is determined not merely by the seriousness of its character, but by the period during which it is allowed to foment and fester beneath the surface, without proper attention and remedy. I think that it is potentially a much greater cause of trouble inside the Police Services than almost anything else.
We are told that because the police are in a disciplined service, any idea of a


trade union amongst the police would be wrong. I regard that as the rankest of heresies. I affirm a contrary principle. I would agree at once, of course, that we cannot have the Police Force going on strike. I would agree that we cannot have a police trade union interfering with discipline. Obviously, there can be no right to strike in the case of a service like that. Nor can we have a union interfering with discipline. But those two things do not make it impossible to allow the police to have a union of their own, a union deliberately restricted to dealing with the wages and conditions of service, and the social aspects and amenities of their life. I see not only no reason why that cannot be allowed: I see every reason why it should be allowed.
The logic of the thing is this: if the service is so essential that a strike cannot be allowed, if it is so essential to maintain it as a disciplined service, then we are under not the minimum obligation, but the maximum obligation, to provide adequate machinery for the peaceful day-to-day settlement of difficulties as they arise. As I tried to say during consideration of the Police Pensions Bill the other day, I do not think that anybody, on either side of this House, can regard the Police Council, which, in any event, is only an advisory body to the Minister, and whose composition is quite inadequate from a trade union point of view—it contains three constables out of a total membership of somewhere about 25 to 30—I do not think that anybody can regard the Police Council as a satisfactory substitute for what we have in Government Departments generally.
The Civil Service is a disciplined service. The prison officers are a disciplined service; but in both cases, and in many others, the men are allowed to have a union which can bring up difficulties day by day. They are allowed to have a Whitley Council, where representatives of the men meet representatives of the administration at monthly intervals, or thereabouts. They have an agenda which they themselves compile. Either side is free to put what it likes on the agenda. I believe that if we are to get peace over a long period of years and, above all, if we are to get the recruits, we must not deny to the policemen the right we conceded to any other working man in Britain—the right to belong to a proper trade union organisation, the freedom to

join an organisation which can, from day to day, without long festering periods of delay, bring grievances to the surface and give the opportunity of putting them right.
Time is of the essense of this contract. I support all that the noble Lord said. I hope that we shall have an immediate inquiry, and not a deferred one. It is perfectly possible for a dozen men sitting round a table to find what is wrong with the police force in a period of time of less than one year. When we have found out what is wrong and what ought to be done, let us put that right next Session. From then onwards, let there be proper organisation and machinery for the settlement of grievances which will make it unnecessary for this House of Commons to debate, at long intervals of time, grievances and difficulties which ought to have been disposed of when they arose.

5.47 P.m.

Major Bruce: I would like to dissent from the argument advanced by the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) that the police are fighting a losing battle against crime. I think that anybody who has had an opportunity of reading the latest Report available, which is the Report of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary for 1946, issued in July last, can agree with the conclusion that there has been an increase in indictable crime. Moreover, it is true that in the case of certain county forces there has been a slight decrease in the percentage of the numbers detected. But there has been no very drastic decrease in the percentage. In these circumstances, I do not think that one can say that the police are fighting a losing battle.
The disturbing thing is that crime itself is on the increase. A number of reasons have been given in this House today. I think an endeavour was made to show—I may be wrong—that a good deal of it arose from the fact that there was an increasing number of regulations and rules and orders made by this Government. That may be so, because, of course if there is an increase in the variety of offences, it is reasonable to assume that this in itself accounts, at any rate in part, for an increase in the total number of crimes committed. All one can say is that in the latest Report available, which is the one to which I have referred, and also


in the Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, these suggestions do not appear. In the first Report, the reasons for the increase in crime are given. They are stated to be:
The whereabouts of many of the older type of active criminals are not now known because of the changes brought about by the war. A new and younger group which has become operative as a result of war conditions. The scarcity of goods and the readiness with which, when obtained, they can be disposed of at high prices in the 'black market.' The tendency of many members of the public—for reasons on which it is not for us to comment—to have in their houses very large sums of money and valuables.
It also says—and this is a point to which I want to give some emphasis—that the increase in crime is to some extent due to the fact that the numbers of the police on the beat themselves are not sufficient. I draw attention to a very serious remark by the Inspector of Constabulary in his Report, in which he says
It is clear that the depleted beat strength has had some bearing on these questions, and when one ascertains from chief constables the actual number of men they have had available for beat duty during the various parts of the day, the incidence and nature of crime during the year are not surprising.
From the Report of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, one finds the further rather disconcerting factor that a large amount of the crime has occurred amongst young people.

Sir A. Salter: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he dissented from what I said, and I should not like it to be understood that I said something more than, in fact, I did say. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that crime was increasing and that a smaller proportion of the criminals are caught. That is precisely what I said. I said very specifically that I did not dissent from the noble Lord's statement.

Major Bruce: I am pleased to accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. I gathered from what he said that he thought the police were fighting a losing battle. The other disturbing factor about the present position is the remark made by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in his Report about the increase of crime among young people. The Report says:
A disturbing feature is the number of serious crimes attributable to youths in the age groups 14–20. It is seldom that these

youths are found to be responsible for one offence only Cases are frequent in which, when arrested, they admit a long series of breakings; five or even ten cases are not unusual, and in one case the offender asked for so cases to be taken into consideration.
If there is a body of men who should be able to make up their minds as to the reasons for the increases of offences, particularly amongst young people, I submit that it is the police themselves. When one comes to the Combined Report of the Joint Central Committee of the Police Federation of England and Wales one finds here, very coolly and carefully stated, one of the reasons for the increase of the incidence of crime among young people. The Report states, at page 59:
The general shortage of personnel to perform beat duty means, in addition to being unable to adequately protect property that proper attention is not paid to children and young persons who are really in need of extra care and attention, after being so much at a more or less loose end during the war years. This failure to provide correction, and to prevent many of the smaller offences, simply gives encouragement to those so minded to embark on something larger and more venturesome. And so it is that those who, through lack of attention, become petty pilferers or commit other minor offences grow up with the thought that their chances of being caught or checked are negligible.
That is the opinion of the Police Forces themselves on this matter, which is linked directly, as the noble Lord pointed out, with the actual strength of the Police Forces in this country.
I know that the establishments of the Police Forces have been increased recently, and possibly their present strength in relation to their prewar establishment is not so bad. I believe that, on 30th September, it was something like 13,000 short, including women police, and now, under the new establishments, it is somewhere near 20,000 short. It is not only a question of the overall shortage of police. One finds that there is a maldistribution of police in some areas. One finds, for example, in places like the city which I have the honour to represent, with 280,000 inhabitants, there is one constable to 782 persons, each policeman covering 26 acres, whereas, in Southampton, with a population of 150,000, there is one constable to every 414 persons, which means, roughly, that the people of Southampton are about twice as well served numerically as are the people of Portsmouth, and, incidentally, the acreage coverage of each con-


stable is approximately the same. There is a maldistribution in Police Forces which requires attention.
The principal question now is this: why, are not more recruits coming in, and why are such a high proportion leaving in under 15 years' service? There have been many explanations given this afternoon. The housing shortage has been touched upon, and there have been various other motives given. It is, therefore, interesting to have a look at what the Police Federation say themselves about this matter. They say:
The attractiveness of other professions and the prevailing conditions in industry have done much to attract the attention of the would-be recruits, and have caused many to resign the service when they realise what police duty means
In case it should be thought that financial considerations are always the dominant ones—and financial ones have been touched upon in the House today—I wish to record the view of the chief constable of Portsmouth on this subject, as he does not think that the financial considerations are the greatest. He said:
What we do frequently learn is that the nature of the work is tedious, night duty is irksome and lonely, after the companionship of other Service life, and restrictions upon leisure time are burdensome.
Whatever the real reasons may be for the extremely low level of recruitment, and whatever may be the reasons for people leaving the police before they have served their time, the first submission that I want to make to the House is that we should find out very quickly what these reasons are, and, on that account, I would urge on the Home Secretary the necessity for the Committee which is to investigate pay and conditions in the Police Force to start its operations rather earlier than 1949. I ask my right hon. Friend why it is necessary to wait until 1949 for this purpose. I have some idea that, when he was negotiating pay and conditions a little while back, it was agreed with the Police Council that the new methods of pay would be allowed to remain in operation, I think, to the end of 1949. Possibly, the appointment of this Committee has been held up for the time being because he has not wanted to prejudice any of the existing rates of pay.
We are not only concerned with actual pay, but also with conditions, and, in reply to a Question on 20th February last, by the hon. and gallant Member

for South Portsmouth (Sir J. Lucas), the Home Secretary admitted himself that the conditions in which the Police Forces were working were not all under his control. If there are a number of conditions in which the police are working which are out of his control, and they are having an adverse effect upon recruiting, then it is extremely important that this Committee should be appointed right away. I think that the figures which have already been quoted in regard to the shortage of police below the establishment, together with the already recognisable increase in the incidence of crime in the country, provide an overwhelming reason why this Committee should be appointed with the least possible delay. As it is, we must discuss these matters in so far as we know them at the present time, and without the guidance we should possibly be able to obtain from such a Committee if it were appointed and made its report fairly expeditiously to the House.
One of the matters touched upon was, of course, the question of pay, which has already been dealt with by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham and the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys). In general, I agree with what has been said. At the present time —that is, under S.R. & O. 1603 of 1947, which is the latest amended Police Regulation—a police constable receives, on appointment, five guineas a week. He gets no rise for two years, but, in the third year, there is an increment of 3s., and, thereafter, his pay rises by yearly increments of 3s. until, after 10 years, he receives £6 12s. a week. The Police Federation recommended that the initial salary should be in the region of £5 10s. and should rise to £7 10s. after eight years. In the case of a sergeant, the existing regulations provide that, on appointment, he shall receive £7 10s. with five yearly increments of 3s. bringing his pay to £8 5s. The Police Federation proposed that, on appointment, he should receive £9, and £10 5s. at the end of five years.
It is not for me to say whether the Police Federation's demands are too high or whether the Home Secretary's concessions, as incorporated in the present regulations, are too low. All one knows at the present time is that insufficient recruits are forthcoming. It is quite true that there are special increments for zeal which can be given by chief constables


after five years' service. It is also true that additional increments can be given to people of exceptionally long service of 15 or 16 years. But the question to which the public, as well as this House, has to address itself is, are these rates really adequate? The Federation say that they are not, and, when one comes to compare them with rates obtaining in other countries with substantially the same cost-of-living standards, such, for example, as New Zealand, one finds that the pay of constables on appointment is considerably higher than in this country.
The higher rate not only applies to pay, but also to such things as rent allowance. Fortunately, by a concession made by the Home Secretary, and which was warmly appreciated by all ranks in the Force, rent allowance is now free of tax. But no rate of rent allowance is laid down in the regulations. In some parts of the country very small rent allowances are paid by the police authorities. The Police Federation complained of one case where a man was getting a rent allowance of as little as 2s. 6d. a week. There are also, of course, other allowances which are not generally applicable to all policemen, but only to those employed on special duties. For instance, there are the detectives' allowances, and so on.
Hours of duty have been touched upon, and I submit that they are extremely important. The policemen are a little disturbed—and this rankles with them— that quite a considerable amount of the work they do, which can properly be attributed to their tour of duty, has, nevertheless, to be performed in their spare time. For example, the time of return to the station after relief does not count as part of their normal tour of duty. Again, engagement on casual escort duty does not count as part of their normal tour of duty. What is not generally known is that, if a continuous tour of duty of eight hours is performed, only half an hour is allowed, under regulations, for refreshment.
But most serious of all are the restrictions upon leisure which quite a number of hon. Members may not appreciate with the same intensity as those who labour under them. In this, I have no firsthand experience, and no means of checking any of the available data put forward about it; neither have I had any specific

representations as such made to me by the Police Federation, or by any member of the Federation. All that one can go on are the reports of the Police Federation itself, which can be obtained publicly. When one looks at some of the restrictions on leisure about which complaints have been made by the Police Federation from time to time, quite frankly, one cannot wonder why, to some extent, certain police authorities have such difficulty in obtaining all the recruits they need.
For example, in some county police districts it is the practice, instead of holding weekly pay parades, for pay parades to be held at irregular periods outside the men's tour of duty, and for the opportunity to be used for ordinary parades and lectures. In the case of one local authority complained of by the Police Federation, members of the force on sick leave were not permitted, without consent, to attend a place of amusement. I believe that all hon. Members, on whichever side they sit, would not care very much for that. Again, policemen in other districts are required to hold themselves available at all times, which means, in practice, that before he goes anywhere, a man has to inquire from the authorities whether he may do so. For example, in some boroughs according to the Police Federation's Report, the permission of a superior officer is required before a policeman may leave the borough on pleasure. There are plenty of other instances; I cannot name the authorities concerned specifically, but the cases are presumably serious enough to be reported by the Police Federation. There is a whole series of what we would consider quite unwarrantable restrictions on the leisure life of the constable himself.
Before we can expect any very great increase in recruitment, or any great diminution in the number of those who go out earlier, many of these anomalies, and, indeed, those touched upon in earlier Debates, will have to be dealt with. I sincerely hope that the Home Secretary will not consider himself irrevocably bound by the contents of the White Paper on Police Pensions. I trust that, between now and the time that he formulates his regulations, he will find an opportunity to deal in the upward direction with those pension matters discussed by us, and on which contributions were made from all sides of the House some three weeks ago.
I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) on the necessity for the police organisation itself having rather wider powers than it has at present. At the moment, the Police Federation is able to act as a negotiating body on behalf of its members with the Police Council. I believe that my right hon. Friend has told the Federation that if it cares to submit further constructive proposals about its part in possible arrangements for arbitration proceedings, he would welcome them. I fully appreciate that the Federation labours under one big disadvantage. At the present time, it is forbidden under the regulations to employ any civilian staff which it is obviously necessary for it to do if it is to conduct an office of its own, and, above all, if it is to inform the public. It is of very great importance that, although one may not go all the way with the hon. Member for Rugby and his trade union proposals, the existing police negotiating machinery, whatever its defects may be, should be entitled to have at its disposal an organisation through which the ordinary general public can be made aware of the point of view of the Police Federation. I should have thought the case for that was practically unanswerable.
It may well be that a good number of the changes demanded from both sides of the House will involve extra cost. That cost, in some instances, will fall upon the police authority and, therefore, ultimately upon the rates. No one should advocate concessions which he is not prepared to justify, save as part of a rectification of a social balance which he feels to be unjust. The prospect in which I prefer to put the matter is this. Many of us would prefer to pay more than we might have to pay, for instance, in terms of a child knocked down at a school crossing who might not have been knocked down had there been police available for more regular traffic guidance; or in terms of a growing increase of crime amongst the young people, who could be checked and guided if more adequate numbers of police were available.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Maude: I have listened with great attention to the well reasoned speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce). I do not want to argue with him apart from referring to one matter which is in his mind. If

Southampton is, in fact, better provided with police than Portsmouth, one of the reasons is probably that Portsmouth has naval patrols and Southampton has not. There must be some reason, but I do not know that the rates of crime are any worse. One city may vary tremendously from another. When I listened to the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) I could not imagine a speech less likely to attract new men into the Police Forces. I can imagine her telling a young man who is thinking of joining the force that he must have a tremendous knowledge; that he will have continually to be in uniform; that there are hardly any canteens; he will get stomach trouble, and he must be much taller than the average height. Furthermore, the transport leaves much to be desired, there are not enough senior posts, conditions in the stations are deplorable and the quarters are very undesirable.
That may all be true—I do not know and I cannot say. It may be all absolute hell if one is allowed to say that, but in 25 years I have had very little experience of that. Not only will the Home Secretary, in his recruitment drive, apparently have to contend with this, but it is said that many chief constables are enforcing pettifogging regulations, inflicting trivial pinpricks, and so on. That may be so but I did not hear much cheering at it in the House. The public must not be allowed to think that all these things are anything but the small points which the hon. Lady admitted they were. The hon. Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) said that the policeman was never off duty—it is one of those slogans connected with the men in blue. People who go about all over the country saying that the policeman is never off duty will never get anybody to join the force. Of course the policeman goes off duty; of course he has time to himself.
To think, as one hon. Member does that the crushing of crime depends upon the mobility and ubiquity of the police is nonsense. What we have to do is not only to prevent offences but to catch the men after they have committed them. We cannot put a policeman at every street corner or have a policeman walking up and down every street. What we want to do is to catch the man when he has committed the crime. There is something else I would like to put on record once


again. The criminal, properly so called, will always go on with crime so long as he thinks there is a sporting chance of getting off altogether, that is to say, not being detected. At present, as some hon. Members have pointed out, a great number of individuals obviously think they have a sporting chance of not being taken.
The right hon. Gentleman the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) drew a lurid picture of the tremendously skilled criminal—a sort of university graduate, so far as I can see, or doctor of criminology—going about all over the country. That is a completely false conception. The ordinary crook who gangs up is a nasty, sordid, mean-minded person possessing nothing more than cunning. Nor is it true to say that the police are fighting a losing battle. That is not so. My experience is that the detection rates are now very high. As I am sure hon. Members will know, that means that out of every 100 crimes of the invidious and most tiresome sort—burglaries and so on—they were very low. It is not in the public interest to mention exactly what they were. There is no doubt that the figures have been rising recently. At the same time, it is no use pretending that a losing battle is being fought. It is a battle which will go on with very great surprises to the crook.
I would refer to the questions of pay and of housing. It is irresponsible and cruel for any hon. Member to urge on the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health that houses should be allocated for the police as a priority. That is wrong and wicked. It might be all very well, however, if we could, in fact, build many more houses. I wonder whether those hon. Members whom I have heard this afternoon would dare go to their constituents, and say to people in houses where there is tuberculosis or bad overcrowding, "Yes, I urged upon the House of Commons that, instead of your getting a house, a policeman should get it." It is no wonder that the local authorities have hesitated to take such action. It is only human that one should bow, not merely to disease, but to all sorts of miseries, and feel that they should come first in treatment. A far larger number of houses is required before allocations can be made to the police.
We must turn our minds to the problem proper, that of wages. It is true that one can point to food and separation allowances, rent allowances—which is not subject to Income Tax—and so on, but it is my honest belief that the amounts are insufficient. Certain things connected with these wages are really ludicrous. I can speak on one matter which is known to me and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to contradict me because I have tried to verify my facts. My example is that of a uniformed Metropolitan Police sergeant who takes an examination to rise to the rank of station sergeant. First, he has to undergo an educational examination—the Civil Service examination—from the second class, I believe it is called, to the first class. Then he has an examination on what are called general orders—the disciplinary code, law procedure, and so on. I do not suggest that it is a tremendous difficulty, but not everybody gets through. Something like 50 per cent. of the entrants are ploughed. Those sergeants who do get through and hope to be made station sergeants then appear before a selection board, but not everybody is selected. The percentage selected is something like 29 per cent. Then the man has to wait. All this is quite right and sensible, but what happens on the question of pay seems a little stupid. As I think the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) mentioned, in respect of a constable, the increase on starting as a station sergeant is 3s. a week.
What happens in the case of the sergeant of whom I am thinking? What I have to say will appeal particularly to hon. Members opposite who understand the value of bicycles to the working men as opposed to the cost of bus fares. The sergeant gets 3s. a week, but not all of it, because some of it goes to the pension fund and some goes to P.A.Y.E. In fact, he gets 1s. 9d. extra in his pocket. Whereas in his old job he used to bicycle to work, in his new job he has to pay 2s. 4½d. every day on bus fares. Hon. Members will see that 3s. does not cover that. At the end of the week he has paid out in bus fares 14s. 3d., and he has a rise in pay ostensibly of 3s. but in fact 1s. 9d. Therefore, that man will say to a young man who is thinking of entering the Police Force, "Look out. Sometimes these wage arrangements do not work out very well. Do not pay


attention to those who say that all the time you are earning a pension because, young man, at the end of my time, if I remain a station sergeant, I will have added 45. 6d. a week to my pension, but if you check the figures carefully you will see that I am paying out very much more."

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)rose——

Mr. Maude: I am sorry I cannot give way, much as I would like to. I have already been speaking for some time. I have taken one example only. There are other considerations. A police officer has one Sunday off every month. On the other three Sundays he has an early duty, from 6 a.m. till 2 p.m. or he works from 2 p.m. till 10 p.m. or from 10 till 6 or 11 till 7. There is no extra pay. There is no time off on bank holidays, although perhaps a day might be granted in lieu. I have heard that it will be granted, but it has not been announced yet and it has not appeared in orders. When the man goes on night duty his wife has an added nuisance in her life. She is not only getting meals all day long, but she has to get another one at 7.30 or 8.30 for her husband.
The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the efficiency of the Police Force, and I have not the slightest doubt that he will do everything possible to see that it remains efficient. At the same time, I know perfectly well, and nothing that he might say could alter my opinion, that when he goes to the Despatch Box tonight he will have behind him the shadow of the Treasury. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the remarks which have been made by many of my hon. Friends and in particular the excellent idea of my noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). This House should satisfy itself on this matter not in 1949 but in 1948. We should pay no attention to the remarks of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) that the Police Force will be more heavily employed because of Communists. I do not believe it for a moment. I do not believe that everything should be looked at afresh because the Home Secretary might be rushed into doing something because of Communists, but there is an optimum number, and the police are well below that number. Six thousand is much

too low. It is an intolerable nuisance to everybody in every class, and it is intolerable that something should not have been done about it before.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Grimston: The background of this Debate has been anxiety on both sides of the House at the size and seriousness of the present crime wave. I think it ought to be put on record that during this Debate there has been no note of criticism of the police. In fact, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude) has pointed out, the rate of detection has actually gone up recently. What there has been is concern on all sides at the handicap under which the police are working through the very large shortfall in their establishment at present, and there has also been a remarkable unanimity that something should be done quickly to remedy this state of affairs.
Having listened to this Debate, to put in a nutshell what it is necessary to do one might say that something must be done to make service in the Police Force more attractive, compared with outside occupations, than it is at present, and as, in fact, it used to be before the war. I would like to look at both sides of this question. What is it that is likely to deter a man from joining the Police Force? First, there is a certain natural dislike of disciplined service, particularly after a war. There are, of course, irregular hours. There is a good deal of night duty and there is also boredom for a great deal of the time. We read in the papers of the incidents which occur, from time to time, but one must not forget the long hours of sheer boredom which have to be passed by many members of the police force, during which time, among other things, there is a lot of time to think about their conditions. There is not the same freedom as there is in outside occupations, and that point has already been brought out. Last, but certainly not least, there is the attitude of the wives, which has already been mentioned, and I think that we as Members of Parliament, or perhaps our wives, will certainly see that point of view.
Some of these things a new recruit does not find out until he has actually joined the Police Force. I believe that it is the realisation of these disadvantages, compared with the sort of jobs that his pals


have outside, together with the somewhat rigorous and gruelling early training which there has to be, which causes such a large proportion of recruits to fall away and retire voluntarily during the first year of their service. There is little doubt that that is one of the reasons for it.
I now turn to the advantages of joining the Police Force in the past. First, there was the prestige and the honour which my noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) mentioned, and which undoubtedly still exists. I am sure we in this House will always do all that we can to maintain it. But in the past there has been security; there has been the gaining of a comparatively large pension at a comparatively early age; there have been superior pay and conditions, and although perhaps a young man on joining the Police Force does not think so much about the pension which he will get in 25 or 30 years' time or more, he thinks about the pay and prospects. Today the pay and prospects which a young man can get in the Police Force are nothing like so superior to those conditions, prospects and pay which he can get in civil life.
The attraction to the Police Force, compared with that of other occupations, is not nearly as great. There can be no question of direction into the Police Force, and that gap between what can be obtained outside and what can be obtained in the Police Force has, in my opinion, to be widened somehow if we are to get the men we require. So far as prospects are concerned, it is quite obvious that all the men who join cannot rise to the highest positions; that is impossible. I think it has to be made obvious, however, that the avenue of promotion is open to those who can make the grade.
We come back again to pay, conditions and pensions. So far as pensions are concerned, we have recently been discussing the Police Pensions Bill and, as a result of the discussions in this House, the Bill emerged in such a form that a man who joins the Police Force can know his pension conditions are absolutely tied up by Act of Parliament and can know, in that respect, that nothing can be worsened by any act of the Home Secretary, although there is, in the Bill, power under regulation to improve conditions at any time. The Home Secretary will shortly be making a fresh set of regulations. I ask

him, when considering these regulations, to have an eye to the recruiting question. He will have an opportunity of clearing away many small points and grievances which emerged during the Debates on the Bill and which, no doubt, will have been put to him from other quarters as well.
Speaking of pay and conditions, I would reinforce the plea for a very early setting up of this Committee. I think the desire that this Committee should be speedily set up has been expressed on all sides of the House, and I very much hope the Home Secretary will see his way not to delay it till 1949 or even 1950, as has been at present announced. While not agreeing with everything said by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), I think one of the terms of reference of that Committee might well be the question of representation and the speedier resolving of any grievances there might be. I will not say more than that, but it certainly seems to me that that question might well come within the purview of that Committee.
May I turn just for a moment—because I want to allow the right hon. Gentleman to reply as soon as possible—to one other aspect; the question has occurred to me whether the police cannot be used, if I may put it in this way, more economically. My noble Friend touched upon a controversial point, and although I do not want to introduce it into this most uncontroversial Debate, we all hope, with the passage of time and for one reason or another, the police will be less employed than they are at present with looking after the various controls. Apart from that, I had a personal experience the other day, and I should like to mention it to illustrate my point. It is necessary for anyone who wants to obtain a liquor licence to get a reference from people who are responsible enough to support the application or to give a reference. I happened to be asked for a reference by someone who wanted a liquor licence——

Mr. Ede: I thought the hon. Gentleman wanted one.

Mr. Grimston: Not at the moment. I received a form which I filled in, and I supported the application. The next thing that happened was that I was telephoned from a police station and a most courteous sergeant came round to see me merely


to ask me whether I was the person who had given the reference, and so on and so forth. It occurred to me that a job like that might well be done by someone else, rather than taking up quite a considerable amount of the time of this sergeant in making an inquiry from me, the answer to which I had already put on the paper. If that is happening up and down the country, with every application for a liquor licence, a great deal of time is wasted by members of the Police Force on a job which I should have thought could quite well have been done by someone else. I merely give that as an illustration and I ask whether the Home Secretary will not look into some of the duties now done by the police and see whether they may not be relieved of them without detriment to the public interest.
Before I conclude, I should like to add my tribute to the tributes paid on all sides of the House to the excellence and the high standard of our Police Forces in this country. I think it has been well said that we should remember that "while soldiers are policemen who act in unison, a policeman is a soldier who acts alone." I must say they do so as friends of the public, with infinite resources of tact and patience. Many a time we see what might be an ugly situation retrieved by the friendliness, tact and quiet firmness of the police in great contradistinction to the harsh methods that go on in other countries. This Debate shows the concern on all sides of the House at the present state of affairs, and I think the Home Secretary can be assured that he will have behind him the support of the entire House in any steps that he takes to attract more recruits to the Police Force. In conclusion, I would again urge him to set up this Committee as speedily as possible, and I hope that perhaps it will be one of the results of this Debate.

6.36 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I have listened to every word of this Debate and I would like to thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in it for the way in which they have addressed themselves to the subject and for the tributes they have paid to the existing members of the Police Force. I would like to add my tribute to theirs for, in times of very

great difficulty, these men have not shirked their duty. They have preserved that good humour, that tact, and that ability to deal with awkward situations in a way which deflates all the blown-up pomposity that sometimes is associated with awkward situations. They have done this in a way which is quite traditional. I would also like to thank the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) for the very kind personal references he made to myself.
The noble Lord, possibly owing to his former acquaintanceship with the Home Office, is the only Member who has shown a real appreciation of my exact position in this matter, for he differentiated between my relationship with the Metropolitan Police Force and my relationship with the provincial Police Forces. I am the police authority for the Metropolitan Police. It is true that my powers are limited as to the directions I can give, but I am the authority and I can be questioned in this House, I understand, with regard to any individual act of any individual policeman in the Metropolitan Police Force. My position is very different, however, with regard to the provincial Police Forces, and that is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the British Police Forces as compared with foreign police forces. The real cause of the difficulty which led to what happened in Czechoslovakia the other day cannot happen in this country, under present circumstances. I have only to approve one member of each of the provincial Police Forces—the chief constable. All the other appointments are made by the local police authority who employ the police, and what has happened abroad recently is, I think, a very good justification for the continuance of this fundamental principle in our police system.
However, it involves this disadvantage, that I have to consult and carry with me the provincial Police Forces and the provincial police authorities in the reforms I would like to see. It is true that I can be held more responsible for the Metropolitan Police Force, but it would be a bad thing if conditions in that force got out of step with those in the provincial Police Forces. While that is no justification for there being anything wrong with the Metropolitan Police Force, I desire to see all the separate Police Forces of this country regarding themselves as one


organic whole which, while having separate local jurisdiction, is yet governed in the main—in fact, I hope entirely—by common principles and common ideals. However, I hope hon. Members will realise that this makes my position rather more difficult and some of the problems not quite as easy of solution as some of the speeches have suggested, when it has been said that I should do this or that.
For instance, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) read out a list of pettifogging regulations which applied to the police. I have just published a uniform set of regulations for the whole country in which all those are abolished, and I hope that will be one of the things that will arise from this Debate. They were the most amazing regulations. One laid down that "A constable must not play cards." I cannot help thinking it was meant to mean "must not be found playing cards." I am reading these from police regulations in different provincial Police Forces:
A constable must not consult a solicitor without the consent of the chief constable.
As he might want to consult him about the chief constable, that did not seem to me to be a very helpful one. Another says:
A constable must not rent an allotment.
What reason could there ever have been for that? Another says:
A constable must wear a hat with plain clothes in the streets of the borough even when off duty.
Another:
Members of the Force over the age of 35 must not play Rugby football.
Another one:
Members of the Force must not unbutton their tunics in the canteen.
Really, Mr. Speaker, one sometimes wonders what was the mentality of the person who drafted such a regulation as that. All that kind of thing I have wiped out and, as far as the policeman is concerned, he should be given the status of a responsible citizen who has undertaken very heavy and responsible duties. He is amenable to a disciplinary code, but it ought to be a disciplinary code with some relationship to the importance of the job on which he is engaged.
I hope it will be realised that I desire to see a police force in which the men

can take a pride, and in which petty and ridiculous limitations on their individual liberty will not be tolerated. Particularly I want it to be known that I regard a policeman as capable of choosing his own wife, and I have abolished the regulation in some forces which insisted that, before he was married, he should consult the chief constable as to the suitability of the lady of his choice. I have known constables who suggested to me that they should have had the opportunity of advising the chief constable. I want to give this as a background to my attitude as Home Secretary towards the forces.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) dealt with the problem of police representation. That will be one of the things which will come within the purview of the committee. In 1946 and 1947, at the annual gatherings of the Federation, I invited them to submit to me their views as to the way in which negotiating machinery should be built up and should be made finally effective in the event of there being a disagreement when the negotiations have reached the critical stage. I am still awaiting their views on that matter, but it is my desire that the negotiating machinery, when set up, should be thoroughly representative of the ranks of the Police Force involved on the one side and the police authorities on the other, and that in the event of disagreement there should be some way in which that disagreement can be resolved. That, again, I hope will give to the Police Force a feeling that they are being organised on lines in accordance with the modern methods of dealing with such matters as pay and conditions of service. When I announced on 5th November, 1946, the new scales of pay, they were generally recognised as acceptable in the House; in fact, the hon. Member for Rugby congratulated me on having managed to reach a settlement on those lines.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I was delighted that the right hon. Gentleman had got something out of His Majesty's Treasury.

Mr. Ede: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman was behind me from his point of view, but I was glad that I was in front of him for my own. It was agreed by the Federation and by the local authorities that that agreement on pay should remain for the years 1947, 1948 and 1949, and there was an undertaking on my part


that early in 1949 I would appoint a committee which, before the end of 1949, should report on pay and conditions generally, so that when the existing scales came to an end at the end of 1949 they could be replaced by other scales and conditions of service. That is why 1949 has been the date mentioned with regard to the committee; it was all part of an agreement which, at the time, was welcomed by everybody connected with the service.
I will ask the House to allow me to quote certain statistics relating to the strength of the force, because various figures have been given, and it is desirable that we should get the figures as accurately as we can. I can give a final figure showing the establishment and strength of the force on 29th of last month, which is as up to date as I think I ought to be expected to be. On 29th September, 1939, there was a total establishment in the country of 63,228 and a strength of 61,364, giving a deficit of 1,864. That figure most nearly relates to the outbreak of war; the second figure, which I will now give, most nearly relates to the end of the war. On 29th September, 1945, the establishment in the country was 63,209 and the strength 42,259, so that the strength was 20,950 under establishment. The force was maintained only by the existence of 15,197 Police War Reservists. On 29th of last month, the establishment was 67,980 and the strength—I am dealing with the country as a whole—was 54,746, giving a deficit on that date in England and Wales of 13,234.
That deficit is distributed in this way: Metropolitan Police Force, 5,048; City of London, 259, and the provincial Police Forces 7,927. This deficit is very unevenly distributed in the provincial Police Forces. Speaking as a whole, the largest forces seem to suffer most. There are other places, and some with a not inconsiderable Police Force, where there is hardly any deficit at all. For instance, in County Durham, the West Riding of Yorkshire, Leeds, Nottinghamshire and Nottingham there is hardly any deficit. The shortage of establishment in Nottingham, I was told one day last week, is only two, a matter which may be put right almost any day in the week. And in Nottingham, no relaxation of the physical requirements of the force has

been made. It really is a very great tribute to the Nottingham City Police Force that they should be in that condition. It makes it quite apparent that it will be a good thing to have an inquiry as to why certain local forces are able to maintain a very much higher standard of recruitment, while in other cases this has not been achieved.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there seems to be some discrepancy in regard to the shortage in the Metropolitan Police Force, which it is important should be cleared up. The Lord Chancellor, in another place, gave the strength as about 6,000 on 13th February. Has there been an improvement to the extent of 1,000 in the last month?

Mr. Ede: I have not got that information by me. In view of the difficulties of explaining statistics to the House, I just took out the figures at convenient intervals, but I will certainly look into the point which the noble Lord has raised. The figures on 29th February are: establishment for the Metropolis, 19,767, strength, 14,719, making a deficit of 5,048.
Various suggestions have been put forward as to the reasons for the failure to attract and hold recruits. The hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude) was somewhat sarcastic at the expense of my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock). She said that she was speaking about the force she knew. I do not think that her description was much over-painted as to the disability suffered by that Police Force. Prior to the war, considerable pressure was put on the City of Liverpool to improve all the kinds of accommodation about which she spoke. There is no need for a policeman to go from his home to his station in uniform, if arrangements can be made at the police station to keep his uniform there—of course, he would have to go to the station properly clad. There is no such accommodation in Liverpool. The same is true in regard to canteens. I have been in some most excellent canteens in other parts of the country where policemen can get a meal in comfort— and a very good meal. These are matters for which the local police authority are responsible, and where I only have the duty, as Secretary of State, to attempt to


spur on lagging authorities to make conditions reasonably worth while. I attach very considerable importance to the kind of points which were raised by my hon. Friend, and there are certain Police Forces in the country which could, I think, with advantage pay attention to what she has said.
The question of housing is a very serious one. While I accept some of the things which were said by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter, I think that we are entitled to ask for more assistance from some housing authorities than we have received. In fact, I authorised the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, when being pressed very hard by some suburban local authorities to allow a few more police to be stationed in their areas, to say that we would send them the police if they would provide the houses in which they would live. I hope that there will be some reciprocity between the police and the housing authorities in these matters. The county forces have always regarded the provision of at least some houses for their policemen as one of their duties, but the borough forces have found that in the main the men prefer to find their own houses within the limits of the borough, making their own arrangements with regard to tenure and occupation.
Recent recruits, have, of course, not been in the position of having the free choice which was generally available to the policeman of prewar days. I hope that the borough Police Forces will take such steps as they can to deal with the housing position, and to provide appropriate accommodation where necessary. Here again, I should like to take the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool, which was endorsed by the noble Lord in the interruption he made during her speech, that we do not want married quarters on a barrack system. The policeman is an ordinary citizen, and what is more, the policeman's wife is a very ordinary woman; she does not want to live in a block of buildings in which every woman she meets is also a policeman's wife. I hope that where these things have to be done, the arrangements will be made to place these houses so that the policeman is not put into a little community of policemen living by themselves.
The hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) gave a list of things which he thought acted as a deterrent to the recruitment of police. I agree with nearly all of them. The hours of duty, the amount of time there is free to the policeman and the amount of leave are all things that in these days mark off the Police Force as a service in which conditions are bad. It is very awkward in an era when so many people are enjoying the five-day week to ask people to go into a force where there is a six-day week, where there is a very great deal of night duty and where the hours are so very irregular. It is quite clear to me that for all those things we must have additional manpower. It would be quite useless to inaugurate a five-day week and lessen the call on individual men to undertake night duty in the present state of strength of the force; because that would bring the actual working of the force almost to a standstill in those hours and times when it is most essential that the police should be on duty. I want the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Petersfield to feel that I realise the importance of the points he has made. They are amongst those things which the Committee will have to investigate and we shall look forward to receiving helpful suggestions in regard to them in that Committee's report.
Both the noble Lord the Member for Horsham and the right hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) alluded to the question of higher attainment in the Police Force and the effects on promotion. Let us realise that promotion is a thing that can to some extent be stated in almost precise and mathematical terms. There are so many senior police posts and there are so many men junior to those posts who are hoping later to fill them. In an interjection in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard), I said that I left the teaching profession because the avenues of promotion seemed to be closed. There were so many people senior to myself between me and the headmaster's position that I thought the best thing I could do was to leave my colleagues a little better chance to get one of those headmasterships. We sometimes over-emphasise the secure nature of this job. We want to attract into the police men who have a sense of adventure. If we merely get men in because there is a fine pension in 3o years' time, and unless they


do something very wrong they will still be in the job at that time, I do not think we will get men who are the right type of recruit.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but that is exactly the obverse of the argument I used. I said we wanted to get the younger men in and get them early to the higher rank, as is done in the other Services.

Mr. Ede: That is precisely the point I was coming to, although I was approaching it by a different route from that of the noble Lord. While I like to travel as far as I can along the road with him, I do occasionally like to wander into a by-path of my own. One has to be careful how much one becomes a fellow traveller. I desire to get into the police forces as many young men of ambition as I can, and I want to keep alive in them the hope of fulfilling their ambition. I do not think I shall do that by bringing in a number of men rather later in life and saying to them, "If you get through the college you can become a junior station inspector straight away." There can be no better way of frightening the ordinary young ambitious man out of the force than to do that. I am not convinced that five years is of necessity the least time that a man should serve in the force before he is allowed to go to the college. These men are to be promoted as police officers and this is a means of promotion inside the Police Service.
I want everyone who comes into the service to feel that there are no back ways by which other people can get in to the detriment of the type of man that the noble Lord has mentioned—the young man who has gone from the primary school to the secondary school and then possibly to the university, and who comes into the Police Force at the appropriate age. I want him to feel that, if he comes in as a policeman and proves that, in addition to the qualities of intellect and study that he has demonstrated by his academic career, he also has the making of a good policeman, his other training will not be a detriment to him when his suitability as a policeman is being considered.

Sir A. Salter: The right hon. Gentleman would not push that to the extent of saying that no people such as the

special class I have mentioned should be brought into the higher ranks of the Police Force?

Mr. Ede: I have been considering the point that the right hon. Gentleman the Senior Burgess for Oxford University put to me in a conversation I had with him some time ago. The proper place for such people is as consultants, and I am taking steps to see that such advantages as we can get from association with them will be gained. I want the young man coming into the Police Force, especially the man coming out of the Services, to feel that promotion in the Police Service will depend upon his character and his ability as a policeman. His intelligence must be an integral part of the consideration as much as his police experience. Therefore, I would not for a moment consider opening any college on the lines of the Hendon College. In my opinion no inconsiderable part of my difficulties with the existing Police Force is due to the disappointment and ill feeling that was caused by that experiment. The experiment I am now trying will be more advantageous to the Police Force and will not have the detrimental effects that the other experiment had.
I have endeavoured to cover the points that have been raised by hon. Members. I recognise that what was of necessity right on 5th November, 1946, may not be right on 22nd March, 1948. We live in times when circumstances change fairly rapidly, and what I had the right to bring before the House on 5th November may now be regarded as something that needs review. I have, therefore, decided that as far as the Committee is concerned I will set it up as soon as possible. I want the members of that Committee to make a thorough survey of the whole position, and to deal with all the points, both large and small, that have been raised here today. I agree with the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool that some of these seemingly small points probably occupy positions in the police officers' minds out of all proportion to their real importance. It would not be right of me to promise the noble Lord that I will see that something is put into the King's Speech in October of this year. That was a very gallant effort on his part, and one always desires to meet the father of the House when he displays the result of his long experience here, but


I really cannot undertake that I will go so far as that.
I will undertake that this Committee shall be appointed, with instructions that will indicate to them the feeling in the House today, that this is a matter of urgency and of great importance. I will undertake that when I get the report I will study it in conjunction with the local police authorities, with a view to doing what appears to be the right thing. I must again emphasise the fact that in this matter I am to a large extent in the hands of the police authorities. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and Mr. Thomas Johnston who was then Secretary of State for Scotland, appointed a Committee on 26th May, 1944, which consisted of the appropriate people to inquire into a matter of this kind. The Committee issued a number of valuable reports between 30th June, 1946, and 1st May, 1947, which I sent to the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association in April and June, 1947. I regret to say that I have not yet heard their views on those important recommendations.
As a member of a local police authority, I desire to work in the closest harmony with the local police authorities and to have the benefit of their advice on all these matters. But, as has been said more than once in the course of this discussion today, delays in these matters lead, as the hon. Member for Rugby said, to a festering of grievances; and I would ask all concerned with the police—the federation, the representatives of the superintendents and the chief constables and the representatives of the local authorities—to regard the appropriate handling of the difficulties of the Police Force as a matter of very great urgency in which sometimes a reasonably quick decision may save a great deal of bad feeling, which in the end leads to inefficient organisation and sometimes to considerable expense.
I am pleased to be able to say that the rate of detection of crime—I think that I ought to say this in view of what has been said—is now as high as it was in the prewar days. The percentage is almost exactly the same as it was in 1938. To those hon. Members who complain of burglaries, may I say that I was burgled seven times between the two wars and the burglars were never detected. At any

rate, some hon. Members have been more fortunate than that. I would like, in conclusion, to express my thanks to the House for the way in which they have discussed this matter and for the interest which they have shown in the welfare of this Force, upon which our daily security and much of our happiness depends.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Is it intended that the case of the Prison Service officers should be gone into by this Committee?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir, the Prison Service is a distinct service from the Police Service, and the hon. Gentleman had better consult the hon. Member for Rugby before he tries to get those two services confused.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE

7.15 p.m.

Sir John Anderson: It appeared to some right hon. Members and hon. Members on this side of the House that it would be desirable to take this opportunity to have a discussion on the organisation of Civil Defence. I feel sure that the Government will not think any apology is due to them for that decision, because I noticed that they have themselves declared in the past week, through their spokesman in another place, that no defence plan can ignore the importance of Civil Defence and the need for full and adequate arrangements in that field, no less than in the field of military affairs. I do not propose to take advantage of this opportunity for the purpose of criticising. We have indeed insufficient material on this topic with which either to praise or to blame. I hope to be able to elicit further information on the subject of Civil Defence. The Prime Minister on 19th November gave what he himself described as an outline of the plans which the Government had under consideration, but that was merely an outline. I have certain specific questions which I should like to put to the Government, to which I hope that the Minister, when he replies, may be able to give specific and precise answers..
I want to ask, first: How far the principles laid down in connection with the organisation of Civil Defence before and in the early stages of the last war are being adhered to, and so far as they are being departed from, why such departure is


being made? I should like, at this stage, to state briefly what in my view, according to the best of my recollection, those principles were: In the first place, we regarded Civil Defence as essentially a citizen service based on the principle of self-help. The whole community would be in the front line, and it would fall, therefore, upon the community, through its natural leaders, to take the necessary measures after suitable instruction and aided by the various specialist services, such as the police, the fire service, and the medical service, expanded, of course, so far as necessary.
The second principle was that the system of Civil Defence should be organised, not under a single centralised control, but on the principle of making full use of such agencies of Government and local and other public authorities as had peace-time functions analogous to the functions that would have to be discharged by the Civil Defence organisation in the event of war. Thus, the Home Office had its traditional responsibility for security and good order. The Ministry of Health were responsible for emergency medical services and for first-aid centres. The Ministry of Education, with the Ministry of Health, were responsible for organising evacuation, primarily because that service was organised chiefly for the benefit of schoolchildren. The Ministry of Food were responsible for the feeding arrangements for the displaced persons—if I may use that term. Those were the responsibilities of the various Ministries concerned, the Home Office having a certain direct responsibility in their own sphere and, in addition, being responsible for co-ordination over the whole field.
The third principle of organisation was that there should be delegation of responsibility to regions in which the representatives of the different Ministerial Departments concerned would be grouped under one leader—the regional commissioner, the deputy commissioner or the district commissioner, as the case might be. These were the basic principles of the organisation before the last war so far as the Civil Defence services were concerned. I say so far as they were concerned because Civil Defence goes, of course, far beyond the mere question of the organisation of the personnel services. So much for the first question which I wish to put to His Majesty's Ministers.
The second question is perhaps rather more technical, and concerns the sphere of the military authorities in relation to Civil Defence. In the view of the Government, should the military authorities, in future, have the primary responsibility, or should they have merely the ordinary traditional responsibility of coming in aid of the civil power when a situation arises which it is beyond the capacity of the civil authorities to deal with effectively? I am sure the Home Secretary will agree that the distinction I have drawn is very real and vital.
In the arrangements that were developed as the last war proceeded steps were taken to ensure that certain military formations were instructed in Civil Defence duties. But apart from very exceptional occasions I think it would be true to say that the Civil Defence organisation functioned independently, on its own responsibility and relying on its own resources. Do the Government think that in that respect a change should be made in their plans for the future? If they do, I would ask whether they have considered the danger to civilian morale that might result if it came to be thought that primary responsibility rested on the military authorities and not upon the community organised, as I have indicated, under its own leaders?
I should like to stress—and I have little doubt that the Home Secretary would agree—the tremendous importance of local knowledge in the handling of such a situation as constantly arose within the experience of many of us during the recent war. May I, in that connection, inquire what is to be the precise position of the functionary who is sometimes referred to as a commander and sometimes as a controller in the new organisation which the Government have in view? May I also inquire what will be the precise role of the police? I myself, from the very slight knowledge that I have of the plans which the Government have been working out, have been left in some considerable doubt upon that point. I know, of course—and this was clear from the Prime Minister's outline—that the Government contemplate military mobile columns, civilian mobile columns and civilian static forces.
I think I have described these different parts of the organisation accurately. I am not sure, but I think it has been sug-


gested that the civilian mobile forces will be based on the police organisation. I am not sure, however, whether they are to be based entirely on the police organisation, or whether they are to be partly based on the local authority organisation. I should like further light to be thrown on that. I think it has been stated with precision that the local static forces will be organised and administered by the police. I hope the Home Secretary will be able to make clearer than it is now what the Government have in view in relation to the police in this matter.
If I might venture an opinion on that subject, I suggest that it is very necessary to beware of overburdening the police. They would inevitably have very heavy responsibilities in their own sphere, and I believe that in the cases where, in the last war, Civil Defence services were organised under the control of chief constables, as happened in several centres, experience showed that the burden was really more than one officer could comfortably bear. I hope the Home Secretary will give us his views on that subject.
I should now like to pass from the question of the organisation of the services to another topic of great importance in connection with Civil Defence. I refer to shelter policy. I have no doubt, and I am sure the Government have no doubt, that some account ought to be taken of the possible effects of atomic bombs. We probably do not know at present as much as we shall come to know in time about the probable effects of atomic bombs of different types, exploded in different conditions. But when we come to organise a system of shelters, or make plans for shelters in the possible conditions of a war in future, it seems that some account must be taken, and from an early stage, of the bearing of this new and horrible aspect of war on our problem. The first thing I would say to the Government is that we should not, because of the novelty and uncertainty which surrounds this subject, either do nothing on the one hand or, on the other, attempt the impossible.
I should like to make a few observations, based on such knowledge as I have been able to gain, on the bearing of the atomic bomb upon shelter policy. The

consequences of the explosion of an atomic bomb may, for this purpose, be considered under four heads. There is, first, the blast from the explosion. There is, secondly, the risk of what is called flash burn, which is burning by the radiation of heat. It is a phenomenon almost unknown before the fast atomic bombs were set off. Then there is the problem of radiation; and, lastly, the problem of contamination.
So far as blast is concerned, at more than a very short distance from the centre of an atomic bomb explosion the blast wave presents all the characteristics of the blast wave following an ordinary explosion. It may no doubt be considerably more violent, but it is not different in kind from an ordinary blast wave. So far as the protection afforded by some thickness of resisting material is concerned, there is not so very much difference in respect of blast between an atomic bomb explosion and any other sort of explosion. Therefore, if general considerations of policy dictated that a system of surface shelters should be adopted, there seems no reason why such a system should be rejected because of the atomic bomb. I will say a word or two further on that point in a moment.
Flash burns were the cause of many casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The very flimsiest protection is sufficient to prevent injury. A sheet of brown paper would do. Radiation on the other hand, presents a serious problem peculiar to the atomic bomb explosion. In order to give protection against radiation it would be necessary, according to such information as I have, for considerable thicknesses of resisting material—it need not be of solid structure—to be interposed between the explosion and the people to be protected. Some means must therefore be found—assuming that such shelters as were used during the last war will still have to be resorted to—for covering the shelter with material which will suffice to exclude the results of radiation. No doubt research will be required to determine the best kind of material. It may be that a concrete construction will be best, but, on the other hand, it might be that a substantial thickness of several feet, for example of sandbags, would suffice. Simple investigation would show.
The problem of contamination is this, as it seems to me: it might not be altogether easy to decide when it would be safe for persons in a shelter who, because of the protection of the shelter, had suffered no injury, to emerge. There are certain quite simple precautionary measures that can be taken in that connection. The first will be to ensure an ample supply of simple detectors which could be, I believe, provided quite cheaply, and would require no specialised knowledge for their use. If such detectors were in the hands of shelter wardens, or whoever the people might be having had proper instruction in the matter, it should be possible to determine at what stage after an explosion it would be safe to allow people to come out into the open.
In that connection it must be remembered that while the dispersal of radioactive material might be very widespread after an explosion, a great deal of the activity would die away after a comparatively short time. The activity is inversely proportionate to the life of the material. The most active and dangerous radio-active residual material loses its activity after a comparatively short time. It might be a matter of hours; it probably would not be a matter of days. If the occupants could be provided with suitable footgear and probably suitable gloves, it might then be perfectly safe for them to come out, and even to traverse a considerable area still infected by radio-active material. Whether there was any distribution on the ground of radioactive material would, according to experience in Japan, and I believe at Bikini, depend upon the point at which the explosion took place. If it was high above the ground, all the radio-active material might be carried into the upper atmosphere. If it was on the ground, and more probably if the explosion took place beneath the surface of the ground, radio-active material might be very widely dispersed and be extremely difficult, if not impossible to remove.
I wonder if the Home Secretary can tell us anything about shelter policy in relation to the atomic bomb. If not, I would not wish to press him unduly. May I, at any rate, express the hope that all these aspects of the matter to which I have alluded, and other aspects which may present themselves to his experts, will be

carefully considered, and without undue loss of time? It is obviously of very great importance that, whatever shelter policy is devised, it should be one capable of being put into effect at short notice, and one for which preparations can be made. For that purpose, it is obviously necessary that an authoritative decision, based on adequate knowledge, should be made beforehand. I therefore suggest that the fullest advantage should be taken in settling policy of the very considerable amount of information which is available in this country on this topic, and that a statement on policy should not be unduly delayed.
I should like finally to ask the Home Secretary if he can tell us anything about the progress of the consultations to which the Prime Minister made reference in his short speech on i9th November. I gathered from that statement that it was intended that consultations should be entered upon rather widely with representatives of local authorities and others, and I suggest that the rime has come when more publicity might well be given to the plans which the Government may have in their minds. It does not seem to me quite appropriate that representatives of local authorities should be given all the information which is necessary to enable them to consult effectively with the Government and that, for example, we here in this House should be in the state of benighted ignorance under which I confess I have been suffering.

7.41 p.m.

Major Vernon: The very learned address to which we have just listened was pitched in the key of question rather than that of assertion, and the traditional role of the Opposition to oppose has been for a moment in abeyance. That may be some excuse if I assume the rôle of what was called last week "the unofficial Opposition" and make my remarks a little more pointed than those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson). The information we have about this interesting proposal was given——

Mrs. Leah Manning: It is appalling.

Mr. Shurmer: It is appalling and outrageous.

Major Vernon: I would like to deal with the technical aspect of the matter first, leaving emotion out of it. At the end I may add a few words of a more personal and humane character, but I have found it convenient to separate the technical from the emotional side of my argument. The information we have on this subject was given by the Prime Minister in his speech in the House in November last. Soon after, in "The Times," there was an article which must have been based on what is technically called "an official hand-out," which gave some more details of what was proposed. From this I found that it is intended that the new Civil Defence service shall be on an entirely new basis, all citizens shall be available for training, there shall be mobile full-time forces, the military shall have a prominent part to play, there shall be static forces called the wardens, the geographical basis shall not be the municipalities but certain target areas, as they are called, special training shall be given to the troops and Territorials in Civil Defence and that the sections of subjects are anti-gas, anti-biological warfare and anti-atomic warfare.
Thus there are certain key ideas. One is the static force and the other is the target area. From what I have been able to -gather from well-known experience of high explosives and bombing in the last war, from the atomic explosions which have occurred and the records we have of them, and from the little knowledge I have of biological warfare—the spreading of diseases, the poisoning of water supplies and the destruction of plant life by the very violent or virulent processes which are to hand nowadays—I have come to the conclusion with which I think the authorities have not yet agreed—that this island with its densely populated areas will be untenable.
In the Air Debate, I argued that the Air Force will have to be entirely redesigned if it is to exist in an atomic age. In the Navy Debate I was able to continue the same line and indicate the reasons I thought the Navy also would need an entirely different approach and its material would need radically different design for the kind of warfare it will have to face if we do not avoid wars in the future. For all these reasons I have come to the conclusion that our large centres of population can-not remain as centres of population once a war of this nature

breaks out. The only remedy which can be applied is that of dispersal.
Dispersal has been mentioned a great deal but seldom in any sort of detail. The easiest or most rapid form of dispersal is by air, but there will not be enough aeroplanes to take many people and so that is really an almost negligible remedy. Dispersal by sea will be extremely difficult. The Bikini experiments showed that an atomic bomb exploding under water produces an enormous quantity of radio-active water—one million tons was the quantity which the Americans mentioned. This was partly in the form of rain, spray and mist, and this radio-active cloud passed over the ships and, in the words of the report, turned them into radio-active stoves in which no life was possible. The report did not say how long this contamination lasted, but I noticed in the American papers a fortnight ago that four ships had had to be sunk because they were still radio-active after 18 months and it was unsafe for them to be taken to the ship-breakers' yards to be disposed of in the ordinary way. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities was absolutely correct when he spoke of the effect of an atomic bomb exploding in the air and making objects on the ground radio-active, but an under-water explosion is an entirely different matter. The water itself becomes radio-active and it leaves this disintegration in operation in everything it touches, and that in certain circumstances will last for a considerable time.
These assumptions are pretty unpleasant, but the other assumption which the authorities seem to have made, that war is inevitable or, at any rate, that war is worth preparing for, is one which I doubt. There is a conflict on in the world, a very real conflict—the "cold war" it has sometimes been called. It is the conflict between the political and economic set-up which they have in Russia and the economic and political setup which is characterised by the arrangements they have in the United States. That is stating it in exaggerated simplicity, but no one will deny the conflict and antagonism.
Our problem is whether this conflict will continue in its present form or whether the "cold war" will change to a weapon war. I do not see any reason


why it should change to a weapon war. One cannot imagine that victory by either side over the other would really settle the matter. If the Americans won, they would never be able to impose American capitalism on whatever remains of the Russian population after their experience. If the Russians were to win, it would take them a very long time to turn the population of America into real good party members, supporters of the Communist regime or even "fellow travellers." There is, therefore, no sense in a war of this kind and it may be that it can be avoided altogether. These ideas are beginning to penetrate to America. I can show that by means of a quotation from an American newspaper "The Chicago Tribune," which, in discussing the second world war and the possibility of a third world war, says:
What have we to show for the quarter million lives lost on the battlefield and for hundreds of billions of dollars that were expended? The prize we won is the threat of a new and perhaps even more difficult war. At the end of it, Europe will be a desert, Russia will be an insoluble administrative problem tar more difficult than Germany or Japan, and we may be bled white and busted.
"Busted" is, I think, the American equivalent of bankrupt. That is what the Americans are beginning to think.
Another reason which leads one to hope that the weapon war will be avoided, is the greater difficulty nowadays in getting the civil population to follow its leaders. In the past there were dynastic and economic wars; sometimes people were driven to war by the poverty of their own country and the need for food, when they invaded a more fertile and prosperous land for subsistence; and sometimes they were led to war through the quarrels of kings and rulers. Neither of those urges to war applies now. If the people are to fight they must have some real reason which strongly appeals to them. In the old days the leader said "Fight" and the ignorant fought. Nowadays the leader may say "Fight," but the people will question the order, and want to know what it is about; and unless they do know what it is about, unless they feel in their very bones that it is something desperately worth fighting for, their enthusiasm will be half-hearted, and in an atomic war half-hearted enthusiasm rather destroys the chance of success.
I will not labour the point, but I do say that this new factor which has come

into the world through popular education, the radio and the spread of knowledge, and the more general understanding of what war means, the general structure of life, of government and of civilisation, has made it extremely difficult for people to be persuaded blindly to follow the flag or the fife and drum into the awful calamities which await them. For those reasons, I think there is some hope.
In this state of affairs, what are the Government doing? They go to their experts, ask them, "What about it?", and the experts tell them the story which they have allowed, in a small measure, to leak out to the general public. If we were to follow this advice it would mean that Britain, already in desperate straits to make ends meet, would be faced with another and greater chunk of expenditure. We have the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, which constitute a burden, and young fellows are being conscripted and having their careers upset at the outset, with a consequent great economic loss to the country. If, on top of that, we have the Civil Defence preparations, with all the shelters about which we have heard, with thick layers of sandbags—the right hon. Gentleman did not mention lead as one of the more convenient materials for protection against radiation —the country would be faced with an enormous burden.
I cannot believe that the Government are serious about this, because they are destroying the shelters we already have. We have been told how the shelters are moderately serviceable, and would serve the purpose with a little more concrete on top, yet we are sweeping them away; we are pulling down the Anderson shelters, and taking the Morrison shelters to pieces; I do not know what has become of the gasmasks. We are doing all that, while at the same time contemplating fishing them all out again, repairing them, and having them ready for the next great effort. The Government and their experts have performed a serious and honest job of work; but, everything considered, before imposing this tremendous burden upon us—which may just turn the scale from prospertity to bankruptcy—the Government should ask their experts to think again.

7.55 P.m.

Commander Noble: Today, I am very pleased to have the opportunity


once again of following the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon), because we had a very similar discussion to this during the Debate on the Navy Estimates a week or two ago. Later in my speech I will deal a little more fully with many of the matters he mentioned on that occasion and again this evening.
There seem to be two sides to the problem we have to consider. First, there is the organisation and training of the personnel who, we might say, go into action after the incidents—as I believe they were called during the war—have taken place. That has been dealt with to some extent by the Home Office memorandum dated 10th December, and also very fully today by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson). The other side of the problem is that we must have a plan of dispersal and evacuation, in which I would include our shelter policy. That must be a long-term plan, but, as far as I know, nothing is being done about it at the moment. No doubt the Home Secretary will tell us something about that later. As my right hon. Friend said, we now have quite a lot of information with regard to what the new weapons might be for the next war—although we all hope there will not be a next war. We have learned quite a lot from the effects of the two atomic bombs used on Japan, and of the two atomic bombs used at Bikini. As the House knows, I was one of the two hon. Members sent there as observers.
We know the different effects of the atomic bomb. There is the shattering blast, which I believe President Truman likened, in 1945, to the effect of 20,000 tons of T.N.T., if it could be exploded in that way. There is what my right hon. Friend called the intensive radiation of heat which in Japan caused so many fires and so many casualties from burns. There are the two radio-active effects, one from radiation at the moment of explosion, and the other from radio-active material which is left in the air, rather like a gas cloud, which permeates the ground and all buildings and material in the area. We have learned, especially from Bikini, that the effect of the atomic bomb is limited in range, and is not quite what people thought at first. The first thing that

comes to mind is the remark of the American general who has said that the only defence against the atomic bomb is not to be there when it goes off. Two considerations which arise from that: First, we do not all want to be in this country, from which springs the idea of dispersal, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) said in a recent Debate, one day we must decide whether to build our fighters in Manchester or Winnipeg. Tonight, I shall not deal with Commonwealth dispersal, because this Debate is directed mainly to civil defence in this country.

Mr. Gallacher: Is there any sense in discussing civil defence in this country if all the war potential is out of the country, and if all the people go out of the country along with the war potential?

Commander Noble: Presumably, some people will be in this country, and tonight we are debating the best method of Civil Defence for those people.

Mr. Gallacher: Not a hope.

Commander Noble: So far as there can be dispersal and evacuation within this country, some defence is possible. We should plan very much along those lines, but it must be a plan fitting in very much with our day to day economic life. As I asked in the Defence Debate a week or so ago, are our satellite towns, new power stations and new buildings being sited with any strategic implication, because if not they ought to be. We have now enough information for local authorities to be told what are the modern ideas of dispersal, and what range of dispersal is recommended for factories, hospitals and the larger units of accommodation. They should also be advised, on the information we have now, as to what is the best strength and design of building—this last point is very important—which might well save a large number of lives.
That brings me to a subject with which my right hon. Friend dealt very fully, namely, the subject of shelters. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us on what principle or plan have our present shelters been demolished or filled in; I should be interested to know whether our deep shelters have, in fact, been filled in? As my right hon. Friend said, the deep shelters are going to give the best protection, but the ordinary garden or surface


shelter with additional protection would be quite satisfactory to those not near the actual centre of the explosion. Having dispersed the population and having tried to provide the best building and the most suitable shelters, we have to consider next when the people in these shelters are to be able to come out. My right hon. Friend said there must be some method of detection whether an area is radio active or not. There are instruments called Geiger Counters which will tell whether an area is radio-active or not, and to what extent.
I have always said that the type of building like the Admiralty citadel would probably be as good a protection against the atomic bomb as anything else, but when can the people in there come out and how long have they to stay there? We have the information that the two bombs that were exploded over Japan were done so at a height so that the radioactivity would not be too intense. If a bomb explodes on the ground radioactivity will be far greater than anything known yet. As is known, and as was mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich, some of the ships used at Bikini were still radio-active and dangerous quite recently and had to be sunk. When I am lecturing on the atomic bomb, as I do from time to time, I am occasionally asked whether this bomb means we will have to have our houses built underground. I reply rather aptly that the Minister of Health is having enough trouble building them above ground. This does emphasise that the plan of dispersal, about which I have been talking, must fit in as much as possible with our ordinary day to day and economic life.

Mr. Braddock: Does our ordinary day to day and economic life tell us where the atomic bombs are going to fall and where we should make this preparation?

Commander Noble: The hon. Member seems to have missed the point I was making. We have discovered now that the effect of the atomic bomb is limited and it would be very sensible to have our hospitals, factories and power stations so dispersed that if an atomic bomb falls only one of them will be affected, or as few of such important buildings as possible. As I have already said, we have got a lot of information

already, and there is probably a great deal more up-to-date information which is not available to hon. Members of this House. Let us firstly have a comprehensive plan for dispersal throughout the country and let the siting of new towns, power stations, hospitals and large buildings be carefully considered within that plan. From that plan let us pass to the physical protection as outlined by my right hon. Friend and see that it is provided and that the buildings are most suitable to be constructed. Most important of all, let all this be carefully explained to the people of this country.

Mr. Gallacher: I think we are all mad.

Commander Noble: As my right hon. Friend said, research is one of the most important questions in this field. We have to have a real defence against radiation and a real system of decontamination against radio-activity, for unless there are these there will be wide areas of this country which will remain relatively dangerous for a considerable period.

8.6 p.m.

Mrs. Leah Manning: It is a shocking commentary upon our time that we should be sitting in this Chamber this evening, less than four years after the achievement of total victory, deciding how we are going to protect our citizens against the terrible instruments of slaughter in the next war. This is indeed a tortured generation. Before we have drawn our breath after one war, we are getting ready to fight the next. Before we have built the houses which were destroyed in the last war, we are beginning to think how we should build shelters to protect our people from the next. Before the ink is dry or indeed before we have even signed the Peace Treaties, we are rattling our swords in our scabbards and hurling abuse at one another across the ether. It is a terrible commentary on our times, and how we can be expected to sit here and not feel any kind of emotion while we discuss such things, I do not know. Maybe the men can do it, but I know the women cannot.
However, I want to try to keep calm because there are one or two things which ought to be discussed. Having listened to this Debate and also to the suggestions which were made the last time we had a similar discussion, particularly in regard to Civil Defence, I have come to the


conclusion that they do not bear any relativity at all to what we are supposed to be going to suffer in the next war. We always seem to start a new war with the weapons of the last, and here we are discussing how we shall defend ourselves from the horrors of the next war with the ideas of the last, for I have always understood that the way in which the countries of the world will be destroyed next time will be by the dropping of atomic bombs on the great centres of population and then sowing them with bacteria afterwards. Where in the name of the world is the relevance to that kind of war in the suggestions made by the Prime Minister in his statement? If we are going to leave some people in this country, they must do something or other to protect themselves against these weapons which are going to be rained down.
I remember when the New Towns Act was being debated, one of the things which the Minister of Town and Country Planning said was that some of the new towns were being built mainly for strategic reasons and would be about 25 miles from the great centres of population. It was hoped that we could disperse our people there. How can we do that if we do not know when the war is coming and we do not know what is going to happen and whether or no it is going to be a press-button war? How are we to get the people to those centres of population? There has been nothing said in these Debates that will bring comfort to our anxious people. Indeed, all that we seem to know is that after this kind of war the population is going to be reduced to a handful of peasants who will be scratching in the fields to build up a civilisation all over again.
I hope the Home Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary will bring a sense of reality to this Debate, because it seems to me that no one has done so up to now and that we are being frightened for nothing. Otherwise, these things are not true; otherwise it is not to be atomic bomb and bacteriological warfare, and all these terrible things are simply meant to work up a sort of hysteria and fear among us all. I wish I could accept the naive assumptions of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon), who thinks that people will not fight unless they understand what they are fighting

for. I should not have thought that the hon. Member was very much younger than I am, and I have been through two wars in which people did not know for what they were fighting. Fear and hatred can always be whipped up, and we are beginning to do that at the present time. It is working up in the world today.
Two thoughts occur to me. The first is that if the Government are absolutely convinced that there is to be another war, they must find out how they can disperse our people into the Commonwealth. It is going to be no use whatever to leave anyone in this tiny island. I hope that what they decide upon in that respect will not be anything like what we had to do under the evacuation arrangements in the last war—and I had a lot to do with evacuation—when we had to break up families at a time of great tension. The psychological effect of that evacuation upon many of the more sensitive of the children of this country has been such that their lives have been practically ruined, and I hope that the Government will have that subject worked out very much better than was the case before the last war.
Finally, I would say—and this is much more important than anything which has been said in this Chamber tonight—the "Iron curtain" which we are told exists between East and West has today given place to a kind of sheet in a shadow-play across which both sides see a phantasmagoria of distorted, horrible, grotesque people passing. Someone has to tear down that sheet, and show people on both sides that we are all ordinary human beings hating war and longing for peace. Unless the Government can do that, the Government have failed in all that they set out to do.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. J. H. Hare: The House, I am sure, thoroughly appreciates the deep sincerity with which the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) has just spoken. I agree that it is most important that nothing should be said in this Debate which would in any way increase hysteria or nervous apprehension. We have to examine the question of Civil Defence this evening as calmly as possible, but it is essential that we should not shut our eyes to the possibility that war may happen. I feel that it is our duty as representatives of the people of


this country to see that these considerations are carefully brought out in the reply which we hope to hear from the Home Secretary at the end of this Debate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) who opened the Debate really asked a series of questions of the Home Secretary, and pointed out that owing to the ignorance of both sides of the House as to the Government's intentions concerning Civil Defence it is impossible to make a speech which is not a series of questions. However, owing to the great experience he had during the last war, he was able to give to the Home Secretary much detailed knowledge of what happened then. I feel that Members on all sides of the House must await the Home Secretary's reply before they can clear their minds as to the shape of our future Civil Defence policy.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) stressed the fact that we needed a plan, and needed it as quickly as possible. I agree with him, but I feel it is impossible to make a plan until one has some appreciation of the weight and form which the attack will take. There has been delay on the part of the Government in making such an appreciation for those who will be responsible for planning our Civil Defence. They will include Government Departments, local authorities, police and the Armed Forces. Surely now it is possible, with our present knowledge of the form these new and ghastly weapons of war will take, to make such an appreciation. Therefore, to talk of a plan is really to talk of something which cannot be effective until the planners have this appreciation on which to work.
I am particularly interested in the function of local authorities in the new schemes for Civil Defence which are likely to be prepared. I was surprised to hear my right hon. Friend, at the end of his remarks, say that he spoke with considerable ignorance on this subject because he had had no official information as to what the plans of the Government were, but that he assumed these plans had been divulged in some way to local authorities. Speaking as a member of the L.C.C., I wish to tell the House that to the best of my knowledge there have been no conversations, official or otherwise, with the L.C.C., which after all is the largest authority in this country and the authority

for the capital of our country, on the original Memorandum which was sent to them on 1oth December. A great deal of time has passed since then and I feel that this matter should at least have reached the stage of official discussions between the local authorities and the Government. I hope that the Minister who is to reply may have something to say on this disquieting delay.
From the broad outline of the scheme which the Prime Minister gave to this House, the functions of the local authorities appear to me to be very different from what they were in the last war. Then, if I remember aright, although the civil defence forces were, so to speak, under the operational command of regional commissioners, the administrative, housing and accommodation arrangements of those forces were matters for which the local authority was responsible. If I understand the intention of the Government, they propose, under their new plans, that the area commanders or controllers shall be responsible for both the operational and administrative control of all Civil Defence forces. There are probably considerable advantages in such an arrangement, but it will build up all sorts of complications unless the detailed planning is well and truly done. In war the Civil Defence forces will be operationally and administratively under the area commander or controller, but in peacetime the training of those forces must, as the Government admit, be largely a function of the local authority. Therefore, to hand over in wartime, to an outside central commander, a force which has done its peacetime training under a local authority, must be a matter of considerable difficulty. On that one point alone there should already have been considerable discussion.
I also feel that it should have been possible by now for the Government to give some lead to local authorities as to how they wish to recruit the civilian volunteer personnel who are to be the key to their new Civil Defence force. The local authorities have clear memories of the splendid, gallant and completely self-sacrificing work done by hundreds and thousands of men and women in the Civil Defence forces during the last war. There are many of those men and women available and willing to give their services again. I think that the time has come


when local authorities should be instructed to recruit, at any rate, a volunteer cadre of men and women whom they know gave good service during the last war, and who would be prepared to form the initial corps of a new volunteer Civil Defence force for the future.
I feel also, and I am continuing to speak very much from the local authority point of view, that the Government should think again on the question of finance. I understand, from the intention they have, that large scale capital expenditure construction of new types of shelter, or the extension of existing shelters, would be borne by the national Exchequer. But I understand also that it is the intention that local authorities should bear the costs of what the Government describe as costs of a local character, subject to whatever grant may be paid in respect of the peace-time service to which the extended Civil Defence Service will be attached. In other words, supposing the Government say that the London Fire Brigade shall be doubled or trebled in size, that extra expense will be borne largely by the London ratepayer, and the Government will merely contribute its present quota of, I think, 5o per cent. of the cost of that service. The same thing would apply to ambulance services, and so on.
Surely, the experience of the last war has shown that Civil Defence is, in fact, a branch of the national defence? It became quite clear in the last war, and if there is the tragedy of another war it will be even more true. The principle that local authorities shall act as agents of the Government so far as Civil Defence is concerned should be accepted by the Government. Modern war has shown that it depends for its success largely on the destruction of the morale of the civil population. Those countries where adequate offensive forces are combined with a well equipped and disciplined civil organisation will prove to be the countries difficult to conquer. They are the countries which will cause the aggressors to hesitate before they decide to attack. I believe most sincerely that on the effectiveness of our Civil Defence forces will largely depend the future peace of this country. I would say to the House that we must not hesitate to plan accordingly, and we must not hesitate to act with urgency on those plans.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. William Wells: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) said at the end of his remarks. I agree, for instance, that one of the most effective deterrents to an enemy would be for him to know that an active, strong, well-disciplined civil population lay behind the forces which were opposed to him. I do, however, feel that the hon. Member was a little unreasonable in one criticism which he made of the Government. He said that, if we are to plan for Civil Defence, we must know in detail what we have to plan against. That is, perhaps, easy to answer in a technical sense. We have heard from the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) a horrifying description of an atomic bomb plunged into the huge centres of population, and followed by a widespread diffusion of bacteria. Whether war would take such a form is, I think, a question about which we may have to wait some time—I hope we shall have to wait some time, to obtain an answer.
I hope that the grim joke in which the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) suggested that we shall soon have opportunities for improving our knowledge, will not be realised. Should an enemy decide to indulge in that kind of press-button war, he may find himself faced with certain dilemmas. Bacteria in the past, for example, have been extremely internationally minded and are unlikely, once they have taken control, to confine their activities either to one part of one country or, indeed, to one country itself The hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) quoted a remark by an American to the effect that the only adequate defence against an atomic bomb was not to be there when it exploded. It may be that the best defence against an atomic bomb is for the man who gives the order to drop it to know that one is coming back to replace it in the country or origin.
Hon. Members who have spoken in the Debate this evening may be divided into two classes. One class says, "Let us press ahead with Civil Defence now, because the need is urgent". The other says, "Civil Defence is no good; therefore let us just wipe it all out and withdraw from this country


and, in fact, give the potential enemy what he asks for without his having to fight for it." I should deprecate the latter course.
Some of the questions which the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities asked are not only fundamental, but go perhaps a little further than the right hon. Gentleman himself suggested. Certainly, they are no less fundamental than the question put by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) in the Defence Debate on 1st March. The question which the hon. Member for Twickenham put amounted to this. What is to be the nature of the central organisation which is to be in control, operationally, of Civil Defence? In relation to the little that we have heard about Civil Defence at all in the last year or two, we have heard a great deal about the rôle of the "military columns." I forget the exact phrase, but the intention clearly is that there shall be large bodies of troops devoted to, and ready to take part in Civil Defence work when there has been a major attack on this country.
There are, I think, two questions which have to be answered in regard to an organisation of that kind. The first is to what extent is our military manpower to be committed to such a rôle. The second is, if they are to be committed to such a rôle, what kind of organisation is to control them? I anticipate that, should a future war break out, the problem of manpower will once again dominate our minds. It was an overriding problem in the latter phases of the last war, and was almost equally acute in the latter stages of the 1914–18 war. It is clear that one of the enemy's first objectives would be gained were a great number of active, fit young men, who might take part in operations elsewhere, to be tied up in this kind of purely sedentary rôle. The danger is that by building an extremely elaborate organisation for Civil Defence in peace, we might precipitate the very danger against which we are trying to insure. On all the evidence I should have thought it much more likely that the catastrophic methods of war—the atomic bomb on the civil population, the widespread use of bacteria—would be used in the later stages to complete a victory and to annihilate, a more or less defeated foe rather than at the outset.
If, as the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) suggested in a Debate before Christmas, the role of our Army is to be a limited one in future wars and work in Civil Defence is to be one of its major commitments, then indeed one is made to reflect whether the whole structure of Civil Defence may not need to be reorganised. The control of large bodies of troops on a national scale clearly will require a different sort of organisation from that which obtained in the last war when the work at the centre was largely co-ordination of the work in the various regions. I doubt whether the role of the troops is to play such a great part either in the life of the Army or in Civil Defence. I should have thought that they would have been by way of being supplementary helps to be brought in only in the last resort when a major catastrophe had occurred. I believe, with the hon. Member for Woodbridge that a well-trained and disciplined civil population is one of the main requisites for an effective Civil Defence. I would like my right hon. Friend to tell us what is the nature and extent of the training which he is preparing for the civil population, for the third line in the Civil Defence force.

Mr. Gallacher: Just a lot of nonsense. How do you train them against rockets?

Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman says that it is all nonsense to train people against rockets. I dare say that he is perfectly right. I was trying to say that there is no certainty in any future war of the kind of weapons that will be used. If indeed rockets were used, all one could do would be to train the population, and it would be useful training, to mitigate the damage which was caused. Another of my hon. Friends says, "Bury one another." Not all casualties even from rockets are fatal. Those who are not killed will require succour. One or two of my hon. Friends entertain conscientious doubts whether any form of Civil Defence can serve a useful purpose. It has been demonstrated in the past, and it may be demonstrated in the future, that it can serve a useful purpose. It is the urgent duty of the Government to prepare plans for Civil Defence without committing either our defence effort or our economic effort to an undue and disproportionate strain in the process.

8.36 p.m.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I have listened to this Debate and I did not think that anybody could say that one word of what has been said has been, in any form, of an aggressive nature. It is on the question of Civil Defence—[Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman may laugh, but does he deny that?

Mr. Gallacher: It is all crazy.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Many people in the world today are crazy. We are perfectly entitled as a Parliament to consider where we stand in the matter of protecting the men, women and children of our own country. I think that any hon. Member who does not consider the matter, however unpleasant it may be, is not facing up to the facts of life as they exist.

Mr. Gallaeher: The facts of death.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Many people may be dead if we do not consider them. If the hon. Gentleman wants to interrupt, perhaps he will stand up and I will do him the courtesy of giving way.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that we were not facing up to the facts of life, but what he is discussing are the facts of death, not the facts of life. Let us face up to the facts of life and forget all this madness.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I could answer that remark very easily but probably I should be out of Order. Other countries are not facing up to the things which the hon. Gentleman suggests.
It is impossible to evacuate the people of Great Britain. We cannot consider evacuating 45 million people, though we might consider taking a certain number of the children and old people. We could not possibly evacuate the whole of the nation. Therefore, the answer is that we must stay here and make the best of it. Today I read a speech by the present Prime Minister in 1938 soon after the Munich crisis. He asked some very pertinent questions about defence. I think that we are in the same position today. We are entitled to ask how we stand on the matter of Civil Defence.

Mr. Shurmer: The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the crisis of 1938. Does he suggest that there is a crisis now in 1948 and that we have something coming along in 1949?

Air-Commodore Harvey: I suggest that there is a world crisis at the moment—I do not say, in what degree, but there is a crisis and we must face it. A certain amount of interest has been taken in defence Debates, and I think that it would have been wrong if we had not had a Debate on Civil Defence. Today the three Fighting Services and the Civil Defence service must be integrated. When we come to discuss atomic bombs I must say that I know little or nothing about them, and therefore I cannot make very much of a contribution in that respect. When people say, "You ought not to be there when the atomic bomb arrives," I do not think that that is the answer. In atomic warfare the important thing is to drop the bomb first. If we wait for bombs to be dropped on us, very little will be left of Great Britain which will be worth while. I doubt very much whether we could really defend the country from atomic bombs.
I pass from that to consider what may be more elementary points in regard to defence which we learned towards the end of the last war. After all, at the moment, we imagine that the only country with the atomic bomb is the United States. We have no real reason for thinking that any other country has got it, so I will confine my remarks to the means of Civil Defence that we had at the end of the war. What is being done about giving warnings of V2s to the public? During the last war the V2 arrived and then the hooter went; everybody sighed and went on with their work. We must perfect and improve our radar in order to give some warning to the people. On the question of shelters, I agree that they are an eyesore, but they cost a lot to build, and I think it would be a pity to pull them down if we shall need to build them again. Let us grow some creeper over them and make them look as decent as we can, and let us see that all our underground shelters are maintained in a good state of repair.
I now want to refer to the communications system, and to inquire whether the Fighter Command system of telephones and radar is being maintained, because that is the system that gave us our warnings in the last war, and it is dependent upon Fighter Command. It was centralised at Fighter Command Headquarters, and the warnings were given from there. We do not want to


cause additional work to the telephone system of the country if we can maintain a system which is already in being. On the question of the black-out, I would ask whether that is being considered by the Government. It is very questionable whether the blackout was effective at all in the last war, because bombers can drop their bombs by following the beam and working on interceptions. It might confuse an enemy if we had the lights on, because the black-out destroys the morale of the people, and it might be better not to have a black-out. Is that matter being considered as part of the plan for Civil Defence? Are we also getting out a number of decoys and dummy airfields and so on, because it was a fact in the last war that decoys collected many thousands of bombs which otherwise would probably have landed in the populated areas. Are our food supplies being dispersed as they were during the war?

Mr. Shurmer: We have got no food.

Air-Commodore Harvey: We are constantly being told by the Minister of Food that there is ample food, and the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. However, I do not propose to follow his interruption. If the hon. Gentleman wants to interrupt and will stand up, I shall give way.
The people want to know where they stand in this matter, and I ask the Minister to be quite frank and tell them what he expects of them. May be, he does not know yet, because it is difficult to assess what has to be done, but he should let the people know as soon as he can where they stand in this matter. I implore him to get out some plan for the evacuation of children. It will be a big job, but, nevertheless, whether it is to be done by ship or by air or both, there is a real danger that we shall not get the children out of the country should the necessity arise. I ask him to give this matter as much consideration as is being given to the Fighting Services.

8.43 P.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: This has, indeed, been a remarkable Debate. I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) that we should be frank, and I think that the Estimates for Civil Defence are far more important, as the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea

(Commander Noble) has said, than the Estimates for the Fighting Services. What do we find? We have had three Debates on the Fighting Services, and I have opposed every Estimate. We have budgeted altogether for £305 million for the Army, £153 million for the Royal Navy and approximately £150 million for the Royal Air Force, a total of £600 million. How much are we budgeting for now in what are called "Home Office War Services" in this Estimate? I find that this year we are actually spending £7,166,700,
as compared with £12, 989,780, or £5 million less than was spent on Civil Defence last year.
But let us examine the Estimates a little more closely. We find that of the Estimate of £7,166,700, a sum of £4,200,000 is being spent on dismantling the old air-raid shelters, including those which bear the name of the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), and on the reinstatement of land and buildings. Again, we find that of this £7,166,700, the grant to local authorities in respect of Civil Defence services comes to only £1,200,000. Then there is the further sum of £1,272,000 to be paid by way of compensation to war victims, so that what we are actually spending on preparation for Civil Defence is an infinitesimal sum. Indeed, we are told that on the examination, storage and distribution of respirators and other equipment we are still spending £105,700. Further down in the Estimate we are told that the protection of vital public utility services is this year costing nil as compared with £75,000 last year. The fact is that compared with the £6oo million for the so-called Defence Estimates, practically nothing is left of this £7,166,7oo for the practical organisation of Civil Defence.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he is going to reply, what is the attitude of his Department at this time regarding gasmasks. I put a question to the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty a fortnight ago about gasmask drill in a naval detention prison. He informed me that for a quarter of an hour every Wednesday the men double round the parade ground in gasmasks. Does the Admiralty still hold the view that for the preparation of the sort of atomic war we have been discussing tonight we have to train men in going about in gasmasks? The people who bring forward these Estimates should be indicted


for high treason for thinking of carrying on a war under those conditions, especially in view of what has been placed before this House by hon. Members who have some technical knowledge of what atomic warfare involves.
We have heard today the most amazing speeches ever made in this House. We have been told that we must instruct our local authorities to make plans. Plans for what? To build air raid shelters when they cannot carry on building houses? I would like the Home Secretary to tell us what instructions he is giving to local authorities in view of the possibility of an atomic war. Hon. Members who know a good deal more about warfare than I do expressed a slight ignorance of what might happen in the event of such a war. I will read to the House a quotation from a publication entitled "The Atomic Bomb," published by the atom scientists of Chicago, which deals in detail with what happened in the cities of Japan. It says:
A single bomb, reported to have exploded at a height of 1,000–1,5oo feet, totally demolished more than four square miles of Hiroshima.
I wonder what would happen if one of those bombs destroyed four square miles of the City of London, or the City of Glasgow, with its crowded warehouses, tenements and its teeming slum population.
Structures as far as ten miles from the centre of the blast were reported levelled. Sixty thousand persons were killed; 150,000 more were casualties.
This is no phantasm of the imagination. According to the research scientists of America, this is what actually happened.
A second bomb, dropped a few days later at Nagasaki, was reported to be an 'improved' model, making the first bomb already obsolete. Even though the terrain was less favourable than at Hiroshima, the damage was more severe. The atomic bomb is a weapon of saturation. It destroys so quickly and so completely such a large area that defence is hopeless. Leadership and organisation are gone. Key personnel are killed. With the fire stations wrecked and the firemen burned, how control a thousand fires? With the doctors dead and the hospitals smashed, how treat a quarter of a million injured?
This is not a propaganda dream: it is a statement of the scientific people who investigated what actually happened in a

war. We are now told that atomic bombs are a hundred times more powerful than when Japan was knocked out of the war.
We have had theories about dispersal and I have listened respectfully to the military experts. Reference has been made to the theory of dispersal in which it has been argued that we must disperse our munitions factories to various parts of the British Empire; for instance, Winnipeg. Already in this Debate hon. Members have pointed out the enormous practical organisational difficulties of taking munition workers, and all associated with the production of munitions, over the Atlantic to man these factories at Winnipeg. It cannot be done. We have not got the aeroplanes and we have not got the steel for the ships. As far as I can see, this dispersal theory, if it ever does work out, will mean in practice that the General Staff of the organisers of this war are going to be dispersed somewhere within the British Empire while the working classes, in the crowded slums and tenements of our industrial cities, will be called upon to stay at home and face all the effects of this warfare.

Mr. Gallaher: And the Government will be in Ottawa.

Mr. Hughes: The Government may be in Ottawa and we may get speeches across the ether telling us that we must carry on and shed more blood and sweat and tears.

Mrs. Jean Mann: May I ask the hon. Gentleman who, on his assumption, is going to drop this atom bomb?

Mr. Hughes: I assume that the people who are going to drop atom bombs are the people who believe that we are going to drop atom bombs on them. It is we, Western civilisation, who dropped the atomic bombs on the East. I hold no brief for any nation that drops atomic bombs. I wish this nation would give a lead to civilisation and say that we are not going to be the pioneers in atomic warfare in a vain idea that it is a measure of defence for this country. I would remind the hon. Lady what actually happens in the event of atomic warfare. Here is a quotation on Hiroshima by a well-known American publicist:
Mr. Tanimoto (Pastor of the Hiroshima Methodist Church) found about 20 men and women on the sandspit. He drove the boat


on to the bank and urged them to get aboard. They did not move and he realised that they were too weak to lift themselves. He reached down and took a woman by the hands, but her skin slid off in huge glove-like pieces. He was so sickened by this that he had to sit down for a moment. Then he got out into the water and, though a small man, lifted several of the men and women, who were naked, into his boat. Their backs and breasts were clammy, and he remembered uneasily what the great burns he had seen during the day had been like: yellow at first, then red and swollen, with the skin sloughed off, and finally, in the evening, suppurated and smelly…He lifted the slimy living bodies out and carried them up the slope away from the tide. He had to keep consciously repeating to himself, 'These are human beings'.'
I say to this House—this is a great Christian nation, and yet we are preparing for atomic warfare in which scenes like those will inevitably result. Where is the Christianity of which we hear so often in the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?—only for export. Where is the Christianity when there is talk about organising this nation for the horrors of atomic war?
Finally, I want to give a quotation from a scientist who I believe realises that we have to face this matter from an ideological point of view, and that we have to go back to the philosophy of the Quakers and adopt the point of view of non-aggression as preached by the leader of the Indian people who was shot not so long ago. This is a quotation by Dr. Lonsdale, D.Sc., F.R.S., in "Atomic Scientists' News," of 17th October, 1947:
I believe very strongly that if we were to agree to press for the policy outlined by Professor Mott as an alternative to the accumulation of atomic bombs, namely, an open statement that we in Great Britain were making no stockpile of atomic bombs, and an invitation to the Russians and everyone else to come and see that this was so, we should introduce enough fresh air into the present tense atmosphere to enable the people of all nations to breathe freely again. After all, what better defence is there than to be above suspicion, and what possible foundation for world cooperation other than mutual trust?
I submit that as a result of listening to this terrifying Debate we can only come to the conclusion that modern war is bankrupt, that we are wasting £600 million in our Estimates for this year, that our Civil Defence Estimates are absolutely irrelevant and paltry, and that we will have to reverse our whole international policy and take up the attitude that this nation could lead the way towards a new civilisation if we abandoned altogether the ideology of war.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Bechervaise: I, with others, regret that there may be a possibility of having to use Civil Defence forces again. I do not think any assistance is to be gained by putting up guys and proceeding to knock them down, and, in a self-righteous manner, charging the Government with endeavouring to bring about atomic warfare. I remember that similar discussions took place before the last war. There was one element which held that it was profoundly wrong to discuss Civil Defence, and they would have nothing to do with it. Generally speaking, they were the first people to go to their Anderson shelters and get their gas masks. Then there was the other element which drew very vivid pictures of what would happen in gas warfare. That did not happen. I remember how unrealistic, according to HANSARD, were the Debates in November, 1937, on preparations for Civil Defence, in which there were arguments about who was to pay. How unrealistic was the atmosphere can be seen from the reference in those Debates to bombs ranging from 25 1b. to 500 lb, in weight. As a result of those discussions, there was considerable delay in organising the Civil Defence forces.
I was associated with the Civil Defence force from its inception and became a controller. When the war started, we had fire brigades which were anything but adequately equipped, and some time after the war had been in progress the question of water supplies had not been considered, brigades were short of the fire hoses requisite to do the job, and in some cases stand-pipes were not available. Adequate ambulances were not available.
We started the last war with a Civil Defence force which ultimately proved itself worthy of the highest recognition of the nation, and I think we are justified in discussing Civil Defence now. The right hon. Gentleman who initiated the Debate, the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), is largely responsible for our getting on to this atom bomb discussion, with all its attendant horrors. Whether it is atom bombs or high explosives, we have a responsibility to see that there is adequately organised Civil Defence force in this country. If Parliament can spend a day debating the Army, Navy and Air Force Estimates, I say Parliament is justified in devoting


at least a few hours to discussing the organisation of Civil Defence.
I am sure that the Government will do their utmost to establish the best possible relations with every other nation in the world. They have manifested that desire. At the same time, we must be prepared for any eventuality, and we must and should be prepared to do what we can for the civil population should anything happen. As a result of mere platitudes and ideological talk, we would not do away with fire brigades because fires are undesirable things. In the same way, we regard bombs, of course, as a disaster for the civil population. Heaven knows some of us have seen the results of high explosive, rocket and "doodlebug." The Civil Defence boys did a really good service and were as brave as anybody in the front line trenches, and ultimately at least became organised, but it took a considerable time.
I am going to appeal to the Government not to make a military force of the Civil Defence force. I believe they should be organised in a very similar manner to the organisation which we had during the war, and the responsibility should not be placed on the local authorities. As a matter of fact, whilst the local authorities did set up emergency committees and A.R.P. committees and did a great work in this subject, in the main the business was in the hands of regional control, handed down to the area. I believe there are quite a number of people, not of military age, not likely to be called up, who are fit and suitable to be trained for Civil Defence purposes. I believe there should be a national force and it should be administered by region down into the areas, organised and efficient. As there have been many pleas that the Territorials should not be short of those things which are necessary for their training, so, if we are to make a start with Civil Defence, the force should be adequately trained and have adequate equipment.
In previous Debates on military, naval and air matters, reference has been made to research. For the work of the Civil Defence forces there is plenty of room for research. Surely, it is not beyond the wit of science, which has advanced so far, to overcome the difficulties which confronted heavy rescue squads in the last war? At times heavy rescue squads worked right through the night looking for people they

believed were in the debris, and eventually dogs were brought along in an attempt to trace those who were buried. If science has not already devised some method, there should be further research so that more scientific means might be employed in discovering bodies among the debris.
In a number of fields there is room for considerable improvement. In the last war the Civil Defence organisation was largely a matter of improvisation, and, although it was very efficient, it never reached the stage at which we should like to have seen it. That is not the sort of force we require now: we want something more than improvisation; we want an organised body of men and women who are sensible of their responsibility; we must encourage them in every way by giving them the proper equipment with which to train; and there must be adequate research to provide them with all the help science can afford. I ask the Minister: How many instructors are now available for the Civil Defence force? How many schools for training the necessary instructors are there in the country? I hope that that side has not been neglected. When the organisation is set up, I hope that it will be done as thoroughly as the organisation of any regiment of Territorials, as befits a section of the community from whom we expect so much, and who rendered such valuable service in the last war.

9.8 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: I am very glad to have the opportunity of speaking for a few minutes on this topic at the end of a very interesting Debate. One thing which has emerged, and which is apparent to all, is that for the future, in both defence and attack, we must envisage one whole force. The jobs which would have to be undertaken by the Navy, the Army, the Air Force and Civil Defence will be of very much the same nature in any future conflict. In order to assess what that future conflict will be, we need to study very closely what took place during the last war, what methods were used, and particularly what methods were adopted in bombing warfare. I am probably the only hon. Member who, throughout the war, was able to see, day by day, the results of our bombing and the building up of our great bombing technique—carried out, mainly, of course, by heavy bombers.
We have heard some horrific stories produced from the professors in Chicago about the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. If hon. Members could have read some of the reports I had to read after our own bombing raids on Hamburg and similar places, they would have been seen to be just as frightful. What would emerge, were they conversant with those details, would be that the old system of Civil Defence, however good and well administered it was in this country, would not be the slightest use against any enemy who adopted, not merely the atomic bomb technique, but even the technique we were using at the end of the war. I remember stories coming through —perhaps from prisoners of war—after some of the bombing raids, when the inhabitants were whirling through the streets like flaming torches; and Goebbels himself said over the German wireless that the streets of Hamburg were flowing with fire.
Again, there was the dreadful raid on Dresden—which had never been one of our targets—towards the end of the war, when the Russians were more or less at the gates. Those raids cannot be compared with the raids undertaken by the Germans over our territory, because the Germans never built up a bomber force at all. The biggest mistake that Goering ever made was in not building up a bombing force. The raids which were made on London were very small indeed compared with the raids which were made on the German towns. We have to take the job in hand and try to work it out, not from our point of view, but from the point of view of the Germans. Even if war never breaks out in our lifetime, the Government of the day must work these things out and be prepared.
Dispersal has been mentioned. Dispersal of population is an obvious remedy against the bombing of this country, but as a great project it is, of course, out of question. We cannot ship all our population to some part of the British Commonwealth, but we can at least consider a long-term policy in this respect, and the various Ministers concerned should have this matter in mind. We should realise, as the economic Minister of Alberta said, that Alberta is a country which is three times the size of England and Wales, and that it could be used to find accommodation for some of the 20 million inhabitants which Canada needs.
The same is the case with East Africa, which will be used and is being used now in connection with defensive measures. We all know that Lord Montgomery went to Kenya, and that developments are going on there. We all know that the centre of things will shift from these islands and that defensive measures can be undertaken there, such as would not be possible in Yorkshire and Lancashire.
We should all appreciate that any potential enemy in another war who wanted to attack our food supplies would not have to build up a large fleet of U-boats to sink our ships in the oceans. We showed the Germans in the last war that all that is needed is to set fire to the prairies and burn the grain. The Germans had perfected before the end of the war a very long-range heavy bomber, which they were able to fly across the Atlantic, and, as far as we know, it flew across the Atlantic on its tests. But, they had to concentrate on fighters to protect themselves from the American bombers by day and ours by night and they never went any further with it. Some of the defence organisations we have in mind, which are based on our own limited experience, may come to nought in the end. We have to take a wide view, realising that bacteriological warfare can take place and that our defence is in the Commonwealth. Our developments must in future take place mote and more with the Commonwealth, because only in that way shall we meet with success.
We gained some experience during the last war with the little town of Lubeck. We made appreciations months ahead of what would happen if we tried to set fire, after the dry summer season, to that medieval town almost entirely built of wood. We gained experience in one night, when we proved that we could burn it down completely without dropping any high explosive bombs at all. Some German scientists will be studying the results of that from their experience at the receiving end. And so, a great new technique of warfare will come into being. We have had enough warning from the things we were able to do, and therefore we had better take steps to see that we can cope with anything which may take place, bearing in mind that the problems we shall have to face in the future will be something far more intensive than the problems the Germans had to face in 1945.

9.15 p.m.

Brigadier Head: I am sure the House will have great respect for the opinions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghom), who has much practical experience of aerial warfare offensives, and has been particularly interested in the speech of the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Bechervaise), who has much practical experience of the question we are discussing tonight. I, for one, was particularly impressed by the practical side of his remarks, and his obvious experience and direct acquaintance with Civil Defence. Many points have been raised in a comparatively short Debate, and it would be futile for me to try either to recapitulate them or to make more small points. The best service I can do is perhaps to attempt to underline some of the things which have been said, and which seem to me, from my very limited experience of this subject, to be important.
I think we need make no apology to the Government Front Bench for raising this particular matter, in view of the increased offensive power of modern weapons and the present international situation. The points which have been raised can be divided into two broad categories: first, anxiety as to the preparations which have been made to meet any sudden contingency, that is to say, if we should blunder into war in the next few years; secondly, the arrangements which are being made to ensure that in the more distant future we shall have an adequate, up-to-date and well-planned Civil Defence service. I agree very much with what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), that it is peculiarly melancholy that so soon after a great war we should be discussing this subject once again. Nevertheless, it would be unwise and, in my opinion, negligent of the Government if they were to disregard the possibility of our blundering into war, and needing suddenly some well organised safety measures during the next few years. I believe the House would feel happier if it were sure that something was in train, and was being organised in the event of such a contingency.
So far as I know, nothing has been said or written to reassure us on that point. I believe that every hon. Member owes it to his or her constituents

to see that something is done to ensure that in the event of our blundering into war arrangements have been made which can be put into effect quickly and smoothly. For instance, can we be told that such obvious things as gasmasks are available? I do not know what the new gasmasks will be like; I do not know whether they will he available, although I should say that the old ones have perished. What about mobilising those whose knowledge and experience of Civil Defence was available to us in the last war? Have orders been prepared for the B.B.C. to broadcast as was done in the last war? Have measures been considered for the evacuation of a certain percentage of the population? Are children to be evacuated? Have all these things been considered or have they been filed and put into abeyance because the Home Office are so busy with many other things? Will the Government have to make a sudden effort to take ad hoc steps which can only result in inefficient counter-measures to a very dangerous and a very present threat? The House deserves an explanation of the measures that are in hand to deal with such a short-term emergency.
I pass now to the question of the main arrangements and principles which have been enunciated concerning the evolution of our future Civil Defence. A memorandum was circulated to local authorities and, I understand, to the Press. I have a copy in my possession, which I have read with some care, and I would like to make a few comments on the steps that are being taken in connection with our future Civil Defence services. The memorandum quite logically divides the question of Civil Defence into two categories: first, the steps to be taken before the bomb drops, namely, the preventive steps; and secondly, the steps to be taken after the bomb drops, namely, the remedial steps. Let us take the question of the preventive steps first. The memorandum states:
The provision of structural protection for the civilian population and for industrial plant, communications, and essential supplies and services…in due course provision will also be made…
I think that the general opinion of anyone who has read the memorandum is that, so far as preventive measures are concerned, there is a somewhat leisurely tone about it—"in due course"—"in


the future"—" close study "—" in the course of the years "—" as the situation develops," etc. I must confess that I quarrel most strongly with that attitude towards preventive measures.
I will explain to the House why I do so. I believe this to be a very matter. At the present time, many plans are being made for future construction of various kinds. Let me illustrate what I mean. I know personally of an architect who is designing several factories. They will not be made for four, five or six years. He is making the designs now because it takes a very long time to design a factory. He has asked whether the Government have any special modifications to be included in the designs before they are approved by the firm and eventually erected when the permit comes along. The answer he has received is that there are no special directions. It is my contention that this question of the policy on preventive measures should have been considered and settled as a far more urgent priority than is the case. Policy must be designed early; then announced, and thus incorporated in the plans, or in the design of the factories, or whatever it may be.
Let me give some more illustrations. I understand that at present the Ministry of Transport are designing certain large underground garages to relieve congestion in Central London. I am told that these garages are being designed as a long term project; but the designer is now making the plans, and he would like to know of any special modification in design, concrete, ventilation or any other matters essential from the point of view of defence. The same applies to the railways. We have certain electrification schemes under discussion. Is there any general policy with regard to them? No.
The Government may say that they have had all too little time to consider this matter. But at the end of the war Hiroshima had happened, and we knew about the rocket. We should have immediately instituted a committee to consider the matter. In fact, the matter is now under leisurely consideration, and there is no policy available by which plans now being designed can be guided. I say that this is inexcusable and ought to be put right at the earliest possible moment.
May I say a word about dispersal on a rather broader scale than has been mentioned in the Debate so far? When talking about dispersal on a global basis, there are wiser and older people than myself who say it is not possible to do anything of this kind. The reason they give is that we are now struggling to recover our industrial and economic supremacy, and we cannot monkey about with this question of dispersal throughout the Dominions or the Empire. Therefore, we must lump it and, so far as any kind of disadvantage through our vulnerability from air or atomic attack is concerned, we cannot seriously consider preventive steps.
On the other hand, I have been sufficiently fortunate to have been able to discuss this matter with leaders of the biggest firm of war potential that there is, and they did not agree with that attitude. They maintain that just as shadow factories were created in the years before the last war, so in the same mariner something can now be done to give us some kind of Empire and Colonial dispersal. That has been done by the biggest single firm in this country in Australia, Canada and South Africa, but it has been clone through private enterprise on their own initiative. Surely, this matter should be considered on a Governmental basis, in conjunction with the Chiefs of Staff. So far as I know—the Under-Secretary of State will no doubt inform us on this —it has not been considered. Surely, we should consider certain essential aspects of war-time production with a view to taking measures now to ensure some degree of dispersal. If war came upon us, such measures would not be out of tune with the development of certain industries throughout the Dominions and Colonies and with a pronounced trend of emigration which is now evident. It would surely be of some value if the Government would take a more serious view of some preliminary measures in that respect.
The next point I should like to mention in regard to preventive measures concerns the centre of government. I opened a weekly illustrated paper the other day and saw that the Government propose that the wartime centre of government underground in Great George Street, from which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill)


conducted the war, shall be preserved as a museum. As a corollary, if this is to be a museum, it is apparently considered that it would not be of any great use in the future. If war came upon us again, have the Government considered seriously the removal of the real nerve centre of the whole of England—the seat of government? I well remember during the war there was a certain feeling in some quarters that those in Whitehall were trying to save their own skins. That does not enter into it. If the whole of the communications and the method of disseminating Government orders and rulings are left concentrated in Whitehall and no arrangements are made for evacuation and dispersal if war comes, in these days of atomic weapons we are being guilty of the most appalling, lamentable, and culpable neglect of precautions. I wonder whether the Under-Secretary can give us an assurance in that respect. We went into the last war most lamentably unprepared, and I hope we shall not go into the next one as unprepared, because there would be nothing worse for the morale of the people than to have the seat of government, the B.B.C. and all the other means of giving orders and instructions disrupted through an early and unlucky hit.
May I pass on to another point of the memorandum, on page 2, from which I should like to quote to the House:
…the special requirements of the future will dictate a greater mobility, and a completely unified command…
In this subject of Civil Defence, this seems to me particularly important. Who is really responsible for effecting that command? We all know that the Home Secretary is charged with this particular responsibility. We also know that he is preoccupied with a large number of other tasks. That is proved by the fact that earlier in the day he spoke, quite rightly, about the police. He cannot give his undivided attention to this matter. Who, then, is responsible? Is there someone under him in the Home Office who has that responsibility? The knowledge which has come to us on this side of the House from the announcements which have so far been made is that Sir John Hodsoll is responsible for training; Major-General Irwin has a joint planning staff over which he presides; and we have also

been told that Dr. Paris has been appointed as Scientific Adviser to the Home Office. That is all well and good. These gentlemen have their various functions of science, training and planning to perform.
My anxiety about this question of Civil Defence is about who is really responsible. Many Ministries have a responsibility in this respect, but my feeling is that the present set-up has all the makings of the most dangerous thing in Whitehall, namely a form of collective irresponsibility. I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind the much increased importance of Civil Defence, might be well advised to put the responsibility for this matter under someone under himself, who would co-ordinate the various Ministries and be responsible, under him, for all aspects.
I wonder how seriously the right hon. Gentleman has considered that; how seriously or otherwise he is worried about the chance of this matter not going forward owing to the fact that no one is responsible. I see that the Under-Secretary does not look as though he agrees with me, but there are so many Departments involved which have so much to do and are already preoccupied. I see that the Minister of Health has come in. He has an immense responsibility in this particular subject, but he does not seem very much interested in it. How much is he doing to discharge that responsibility? He is preoccupied with building houses. How much is he really doing, and who is "egging him on" to do something about it? It is beyond my sphere to do that in this Debate. In the last war he had a somewhat dubious reputation as an amateur strategist. He kept demanding "Second Front now." How about his demanding "Home front now" in the Ministry of Health? It would be a healthy and consistent method of advocating Civil Defence. I commend that to him.
I wonder if there is anyone in the Home Office to do what I have suggested? The measures for which an overworked Department like the Ministry of Health are responsible are very far-reaching. Perhaps we can be told something of the measures which have been taken in that respect, because when one considers evacuation, health, drainage and so forth, it will be seen that the Ministry of Health has a great burden to bear. It is difficult to do these


things with a staff which is preoccupied with a housing problem of the magnitude of that which faces us, and is trying to put that straight.
My last point concerns personnel. It has been mentioned both in the memorandum and in this discussion that in the event of war or the threat of war coming suddenly upon us, the Civil Defence machine will be helped by the immediate assistance of the mobile military columns. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us a little more detail in this respect. These mobile military columns will be required at a time of great crisis, when the threat of war, or even war itself, is present. At that time, in my opinion, from what I know of the future structure of the Army, there will be a cadre of the Regular Army, and the Territorials will not be mobilised. The situation will be that the Regular Army will be immensely preoccupied with attempting to mobilise, the Territorial Army. Judging from the last war, every Regular soldier available will work about 20 hours in the 24.
Does the hon. Gentleman mean to tell me that, in the middle of all that, he will be given these mobile military columns from the Regular Army? If he says "no," then I ask, from where will they come? The Territorial Army will be unable to furnish them. I am sorry to say so, but, in my opinion, the mobile military columns are a bit of window dressing. I do not believe that the War Office can implement its promise to provide them. I commend the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary to go very carefully into this matter, because if they have priority, then mobilisation will be slower, and if mobilisation has priority they will not get their military columns.
The question of personnel for Civil Defence is skated over in the most ingenuous way. It is a most praiseworthy effort, so far as prose style is concerned. Does the hon. Gentleman honestly think that, at a time when we have conscription, at a time when we have the greatest difficulty in finding volunteers for the Territorial Army, we shall get people to volunteer for part-time training for this vital matter of Civil Defence? I believe most strongly that he will never get people to volunteer, unless he offers some bait. There is no evidence of the bait that is necessary, if he is to get recruits. If he does think that he will get them, I would say to him that this

country is sick of the buckets of sand and the spades that we used to fall over, and that he will find it hard to find these men unless he makes it worth their while to volunteer. Unless he gets sufficient volunteers to make the framework or a hard core on which to build, it is my contention that the volunteer organisation will fail.
The Home Office is very busy and somewhat overworked. Inevitably, most of the big Departments which co-operate in this vital matter are also very busy and overworked, because never before have our great Ministries been required to do so much. In addition, the general public is naturally averse from this topic of Civil Defence. With the pre-occupation of the various Ministries, and the public aversion -from this matter, I say there is the greatest danger of very few steps being taken realistically to cater for the event of a sudden emergency. Nothing has ever been said to reassure any conscientious Member of this House that the safety of his constituents is being looked after in the event of war within the next five years. I believe that I speak for every Member on this side of the House when I say that we shall follow most closely any Government statement on this matter, and, unless we feel reassured, we shall raise it again at the earliest opportunity.

9.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) opened this Debate upon a strictly practical note. He made a number of observations of a very interesting kind about administrative, technical and scientific matters. He said very little about the broader background to the problem of Civil Defence. He did not discuss why we should be talking about this subject at this time. Other hon. Members who followed him made up for his omission, and many and various points of view were expressed. A number of hon. Members referred in pressing terms to the urgency of the matter. Perhaps the most extreme example of that was in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head). The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred early in his speech to the question of sending out orders. He asked, "Are the orders out?" As I understood it, he was referring to orders


corresponding to those which were sent out for the issue and distribution of gas masks in 1939. That was the context in which he asked, "Are the orders out?"

Brigadier Head: Either I said it wrongly or the hon. Gentleman misheard. I think I asked whether the orders are ready, sitting in the Home Office, so that they could be sent out in an emergency, and not whether they had been sent out.

Mr. Younger: I am glad to think that the statement was not quite as extreme as I thought it was. Nevertheless, I think that the hon. and gallant Member is moving very fast if he really thinks that detailed orders of that kind should at this moment be ready and drafted.

Brigadier Head: Yes, I do.

Mr. Younger: That may be the hon. and gallant Gentleman's opinion. I can only say that it seems to be a somewhat extreme point of view. On the other hand, there were a number of hon. Members who appeared to think that the whole of this Debate was unnecessary, if not rather crazy, because, in any event, the United Kingdom would be untenable, conditions of atomic warfare would make all Civil Defence impossible and we might as well give up before we had begun. I am sure that many of us felt a good deal of sympathy with the emotional reaction of the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) to the fact that we are now, so soon after the last war, discussing questions of Civil Defence. Emotionally we may feel considerable sympathy, but I think that in the light of all these diverse speeches it is only right that I should attempt to put this problem a little bit into perspective, and make a few general remarks before I tell the House something of what we have already done and what we are planning.
It is perfectly clear from this Debate that the term "Civil Defence" covers an extremely wide field. Normally one thinks principally of the Civil Defence services proper, the warning systems, the black-out, the fire service, the rescue services. One also thinks of fairly large-scale enterprises such as the restoration of damaged public services, the emergency medical service and everything of that kind. But, of course, Civil Defence also goes a great deal further than that. It

involves inter-departmental planning including practically every agency of government. It involves the dispersal of key installations; questions relating to advance buying of food in order to build up stocks, storage and distribution, and a vast range of problems which must be faced in order to keep transport and communications in action under war conditions. In addition to that, not only must one envisage large-scale air attack, but also, probably to a greater extent even than in the last war, it would be proper to plan for the possible isolation by military action of complete areas of the country which might have to carry on on their own.
That is something of the range of the problem which is involved in Civil Defence, and I think it is clear that, if we were to perfect and put into skeleton form, if not in operation, a complete system of defence covering the whole of that range, we would certainly profoundly affect nearly all our peace-time commercial, economic and social activities. I am not saying necessarily that that would be wrong, but I am asking the House to face the fact that, if we were to have a system covering that range, scarcely any peacetime activity would be unaffected.
One would have to be thinking in terms of the distribution of our industries largely on military, or hypothetically military, grounds, and of the building of new towns, not only of the siting of new towns, but the nature of the buildings and the types of structures, particularly for public or industrial buildings. We should also have to face very considerable diversion of our productive effort, both in materials and also in manpower, for producing the defensive apparatus, and also manpower in the sense of a skeleton force, at any rate, of Civilian Defence workers standing by.
It is quite obvious that we have to try to strike some kind of balance between, on the one hand, being caught entirely unprepared for an emergency, and, on the other, developing a large defence system too soon, and consequently having to maintain it too long, and having to maintain for a long period elaborate and costly services which, when the day arrived, we should find would be equipped with very largely out-of-date equipment. I am sure that hon. Members, looking back to the experiences of pre-war days and the early


days of the war, will realise that there is an immense advantage which goes to the man who has gone into production last, and one always has to be on one's guard against having production on a large scale of equipment which is quite out-of-date when it is required.
We found that in the course of the last war. We saw the speed at which this technique of Civil Defence can get out-of-date. I think I am correct in saying that we planned with a view to day-time raids of short duration, but, already, by the beginning of 1940, we were finding that it was not so much that; but nighttime raids of very long duration that we had to face, and, consequently, our defence services had to be adapted. By 1944, they had changed again, and we were facing attacks all round the clock by guided missiles; and when 1945 came, although we were not the people to suffer from it, we had before us the spectacle of atomic bombing, which, of course, raised entirely new and revolutionary considerations from the point of view of Civil Defence.

Brigadier Head: I think everybody realises that this question will involve changes as the years go by, but have the Government, quite apart from a long-term policy for the creation of Civil Defence arrangements, any plans to deal with any emergency which might arise?

Mr. Younger: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to continue. I suggest that, after a great war, the first task to be undertaken is a careful analysis of experiences, not only of ourselves but of other countries, to see how far that experience may be applicable to the future.
The immediate prosecution of research on the highest possible priority—research into the scale and types of possible new attacks, and possible new means of creating defences against them—seems to me quite obviously to be the main task upon which one should engage at the end of a great war. Simultaneously, perhaps, tentatively, because this depends on the progress of one's research, we can attempt to develop some type of new modified organisation—a planning organisation—for planning ahead during the years of peace, and it is only when we have got some distance with our analysis and research, and, probably, also the setting up

of our central planning organisation, that we may hope successfully to take any practical steps about recruiting the personnel, training them, providing the equipment and bringing some knd of system into existence.
Obviously, the timing of a programme of this kind is, in the circumstances, a matter of argument. Different people hold different opinions. At any given moment it may be thought that the Government or, perhaps, the local authorities are lagging behind, or even that they are going too fast. In any case, the timing of this programme must depend on a combination of political, strategic, and economic appreciations of what is going on in this country and in the world outside. There-fore, one cannot be dogmatic about the speed with which the programme should be developed.
In principle, I should have thought—perhaps I may get the House to accept this—that very thorough planning and research, probably over a substantial period, would be likely to pay very big dividends in the long run, and that we should not lightly allow ourselves to be stampeded either into cutting short research or committing ourselves, unless we feel we must, to some particular type of equipment, method, or organisation and, perhaps, involving ourselves in costly and half-considered arrangments. In a matter of this kind, I think the House would possibly agree that prolonged planning will probably produce better results, and not necessarily any slower results, in the long run. In this field, as much as in other aspects of defence, we must avoid the obvious danger of planning for the perils of the war that is past. We have to have our basic research and some clear idea of what we are up against before we can put any great and costly machinery into operation.
With these remarks I would like briefly to say what has actually been done. First, as many hon. Members must know, there has been a very intensive analysis of the experience of the last war, not only in this country, but of the experience of bombing in Germany, the atomic bombing in Japan, and so on. It has certainly not been pursued at a leisurely pace, which was suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton. It is being, and has been, pursued very intensively. The Defence Research Policy Committee has


this among many other subjects within its purview, and there is every reason to believe that it attaches a high priority to it. All the aspects of research into Civil Defence are bound up with research into forms of attack, and there is no reason for anybody to think that this is being overlooked.
Mention has already been made of Dr. Paris who, as was recently announced in another place, has become scientific adviser to the Home Office, and who will be responsible for ensuring that my right hon. Friend and his advisers in this Civil Defence matter are kept fully apprised of new developments, and that the requirement, of Civil Defence are kept continuously before those engaging in research.

Brigadier Head: Why not two years ago?

Mr. Younger: This is a question of building up the machinery. I would not say that there has been any delay at all in the prosecution of research. It is not altogether unreasonable to suggest that, at any rate one, or, perhaps, two years, would be necessary before one could say precisely what administrative machinery was best designed to apply the results of that research. After all, the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows as well as anybody else in this House that there was highly developed machinery for coordinating matters of this kind in existence at the end of the war, and that by no means all of it went out of existence. There has been a very considerable interchange of information between all the relevant Departments.
It is perfectly true that Civil Defence, like other Defence Services, has been running down, but I repudiate any suggestion that there has been no machinery in existence. We have got to the stage when, having thought over the whole administrative question, we are beginning to build up a new and modified form of administration for the future. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by my talking in detail about technical and scientific matters. I would only say that research on this matter covers all the aspects mentioned by hon. Members, including that connected with gas, bacteriological warfare, and so on. I think the House can rest assured that these matters are in the hands of very eminent

scientists. As hon. Members know, the Committee is under the presidency of Sir Henry Tizard. Those scientists can be relied upon to deal with all aspects of the matter.
Reference has been made to certain other topics on which we have done something, although I would not pretend that we have done nearly enough. I refer particularly to the dispersal of key installations and factories, and the further question of the standards which will be adopted for big buildings with a view to air defence. I am not claiming that everything, has been done which perhaps might have been done in the last two years. The machinery has perhaps not been wholly adequate. The Home Defence sub-committee, however, which until recently was the body concerned with this subject, has not overlooked the question. As far as Government buildings are concerned, the Ministry of Works has a great deal of information and experience on this matter, and applies that information and experience in the buildings done to Government order. Where there has perhaps been too little organisation has been in the relations between Government agencies and industrial bodies who are building.
There has been one very great difficulty, which will continue for some time. It is a great limitation due to shortage of materials and to the economic requirements of many of these factory buildings. No matter what may be recommended by experts, it simply is not possible to expend another 5 or 1o per cent. of steel on the building of industrial buildings at present with a view to eventual air raid protection. One must expect that at this time the working out of this scheme in practice must be somewhat incomplete. Here, as in so many aspects of defence, we find that economics and strategy are in conflict, but the whole question—these two matters of dispersal and building standards which are desirable—will be very high on the list of matters to be dealt with by the joint planning staff which is now in existence and to which I will refer presently.

Mr. Keeling: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether any instructions have been given to local authorities for giving protection in basements, which, after all, exist, in the new blocks of flats which are going up in every large town?

Mr. Younger: I am sorry that I cannot answer that question offhand. Indeed, there are many details of this kind that I certainly cannot answer now. I cannot go on giving way the whole time.

Mr. J. H. Hare: Mr. J. H. Harerose——

Mr. Younger: There are probably 300 practical questions of this kind which could be asked of me. Unless I am to go on speaking for about an hour I must really be allowed to cover the question in a more general way. I have already made it quite clear that, on a very large number of detailed matters, instructions have not gone out. On the particular topic which I have been discussing—the question of form which building should take—I have said that, apart from building being done under Government auspices, the machinery has hitherto been somewhat imperfect, and that the joint planning staff will, very early on its agenda, be considering how the machinery in this matter can be improved.

Mr. Hare: Although I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, I think that this is a matter of very great importance. Can he deny that no instructions whatsoever have been issued to any local authorities on the subject of defence?

Mr. Younger: Really, I do not know why the hon. Member should have asked that question, for I answered it only a moment before. I cannot deny that no instructions of the kind have been issued. I cannot say without notice what instructions have been issued, but I certainly cannot deny the fact. I have no information that they have been issued.
Another point to which I would refer relates to what we have been doing regarding shelter policy. It is not possible, here and now, to formulate any general policy. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman who first raised this question thinks that it is possible. He talks as though there was already enough information available of the effects of atomic bombing to enable us to say, here and now, what can be done with surface shelters, how they should be covered and so on. I do not think he is wholly correct. After all, even if we do know what happened when the first and second bombs were dropped on Japan, atomic warfare like other things moves on, and it would be highly dangerous to be dogmatic about

what can or what cannot be done at this stage in respect of shelter policy.
That is another matter which is largely a question of research, but I can say—and this answers a question which I was asked—that the deep shelters which existed in various parts of the country, and which prima facie seem to provide good protection against even atomic war fare, are still in existence. I am not aware that any of them have ceased to exist. I know of a number which are being maintained in reasonable condition. Of course, there are some which were intended to be used for other purposes after the war, but I do nut think that they have been put to those purposes, such as underground railways in London. I do not believe they have been adapted; in fact they still exist and they are being maintained. Therefore, there has been no question of those deep shelters being allowed to go to ruin or in some other way to be destroyed. The research on this problem of shelter protection continues.
I do not wish to take long in talking about organisation and planning, but it is the principal point on which I have been questioned and I want to devote a few minutes to it. There have been certain rather brief Government statements by the Prime Minister in November last year and by the Minister of Civil Aviation in another place as recently as 17th March this year, and of course the Home Office Memorandum to local authorities with which many hon. Members have shown in this Debate they are familiar. As regards the central machinery of planning, the principal inter-departmental committee is now called the Civil Defence Committee which is the successor to what used to be the Home Defence Sub-Committee of the Defence Committee. Its name has been changed for purposes of slightly greater accuracy, because the Defence Committee might be taken to include the defence of this country by the Armed Forces; therefore, the term "Civil Defence" has been employed. This Committee has been enlarged. It includes all the departments which could possibly be concerned in this problem, whereas the Sub-Committee of the Defence Committee was rather smaller in its composition.
At the next level there is the Civil Defence Joint Planning Staff to which reference has been made. That is centred


upon the Home Office, and its chairman is Major-General Irwin, whose name has already been mentioned, formerly Chief of Staff to the i4th Army, who has recently been appointed for this purpose to the Home Office. Upon this staff there will be representatives of all the civilian and all the Service Departments. They are not all at this moment appointed—at least I do not think they are—but most of them are, and the staff is expected to meet very shortly after Easter. All Civil Defence problems, both those directly related to the Civil Defence Service and the wider ones of co-ordinating interdepartmental activities over a very wide field will come within the purview of this staff, and we believe that this machinery will prove satisfactory for central planning. I was particularly asked whether there was a division of responsibility which has led to confusion. I do not think that is so. It is clear that the chain of responsibility runs from this Joint Staff up to the Civil Defence Committee, and from there to the Cabinet, and I do not think that any greater unification in that matter is called for.
After all, the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities laid it down as one of his principles that responsibilities for particular parts of the Civil Defence programme should continue to lie with the appropriate Ministry. If we accept that, the problem is one of co-ordination and not of bringing all the immediate responsibilities under a single body. The way in which all our joint planning staffs are appointed in our system of government is through committees, and I think it will be agreed that the Civil Defence Joint Planning Staff and the Civil Defence Committee above it seem to meet the case in this particular sphere.

Brigadier Head: I apologise for interrupting and I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I quite agree with the importance of having a committee to co-ordinate all the many Departments concerned with this matter, but I want to ask—and I believe the House will be interested to know—if the Civil Defence organisation is a mess and nothing goes ahead as the Home Secretary directs, how are we to know whose is the fault? We cannot blame the committee. I am only asking that somebody should be in

charge of Civil Defence in the same position as the Prime Minister was in regard to defence in the war; that it should be somebody's fault and somebody's responsibility.

Mr. Younger: There is no doubt whatever about the Cabinet responsibility in this matter. The responsibility is on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. If the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton remembers, there was a discussion, I think in the Defence Debate which followed the first White Paper on Defence, whether it should not have been on the Minister of Defence, but it was quite clearly stated, and the reason explained, that it was to be on the Home Secretary. It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Member to suggest that my right hon. Friend is too busy to deal with it; many Ministers are busy—I believe they are all busy—but that does not alter the fact that there is a completely clear and completely undivided responsibility in this matter.
May I pass to the Home Office Memorandum to local authorities to which there has been much reference? Some hon. Members clearly had copies, either because they themselves were members of local authorities or otherwise had obtained them. It was issued to the Press at the time——

Brigadier Head: Issued to the Press?

Mr. Younger: I think a very brief summary was given quite correctly by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Major Vernon) who sits behind me. In that Memorandum, as has been stated, three main categories were mentioned—the military mobile column, the local mobile service, and the local static forces. A good many questions have been asked about the military mobile columns and their role. In the Home Office at the present moment steps are being taken to work out, in conjunction with the War Office, a programme which we hope will ensure that proper Civil Defence training is given to military personnel. That is a matter which is only in the process of being worked out and I cannot give precise details as to what is likely to emerge from that training programme, which in the Home Office is in the control of Sir John Hodsoll, whose name is very well known to all those who have engaged in Civil Defence.
The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities asked whether it was now the idea that the military should have primary responsibility or whether they should be only considered to have duties to come to the aid of the civil power. Of those two alternatives, the latter is undoubtedly the more correct, as it is fully appreciated that in circumstances of war, the precise details of which it is difficult to envisage, there will be a great call on military manpower and there will be a great strain on the Regular forces, as the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton said, and also on the Territorial forces which will be mobilising, or just mobilised. It is appreciated that in certain circumstances they may have to be called away from the Civil Defence duties, maybe because of an actual military threat and, therefore, they have to be regarded in Civil Defence generally as reinforcements, someone to help in emergency——

Brigadier Head: Not available.

Mr. Younger: We hope they will be available in many instances, but certainly there may be occasions, in some areas of the country, when they would not be available and, therefore, everything possible has to be done to have an adequate system without them, if it can be managed. The mainstay of the civilian side of this system is to be the local mobile service. In peace-time they would be part time and largely voluntary. In war, inevitably, they would have to become mainly wholetime Civil Defence workers. It has been stated in the Memorandum that these will be based upon existing services, notably upon the police and fire services as a nucleus.
I was asked what precisely would be the role of the police. I would emphasise that this Memorandum, setting out the plan which I am now describing, is specifically put forward for discussion; what is in it is not absolutely rigid, and it is open to modification in the light of discussion and argument. It has been pointed out that one of the great difficulties of the whole of this Civil Defence problem will be shortage of manpower, and that is a compelling reason why the Home Office, in the first instance at any rate, put forward a proposal that the existing services—notably the Police Force and the Fire Service—should form the nucleus of all the other

services. Under this category of local mobile services would be included almost all the services generally associated with Civil Defence, such as the ambulance and rescue services.
Thirdly, we have the local static force which again would be voluntary, and would certainly include the old wardens and fire guard services, but might—and this is put forward in the Memorandum for discussion—involve a much wider proposal for the enlistment of the part-time help of every able-bodied citizen. In the last war, in some areas the Civil Defence service was not far from involving every able-bodied citizen. That may have to be further developed, and Civil Defence training may have to be extended to everybody. It is proposed, at any rate for the peacetime phase, that this, too, should initially be organised by the police; but that again is a matter for discussion.

Mr. Keeling: Could the Under-Secretary say something about the proposal of the Home Office to make local authorities pay half the cost of the local static force? That proposal will certainly arouse strong opposition, and will hold up arrangements.

Mr. Younger: I had hoped to come to that in a moment. I can assure the hon. Member that that is a matter which local authorities have not overlooked in the comments they have already made to the Home Office upon this Memorandum.
There are a number of other very important services which do not fall strictly within these three categories, such as the Emergency Medical Service, special Civil Defence units for factories, public utilities and other possibly isolated installations, and organisations for the restoration of public services. All those will have to be included, and will be very largely departmental responsibilities. For instance, obviously the Emergency Medical Service will have to be based largely upon the National Health Service, with the cooperation in certain respects of local authorities. For all the despondency shown by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton, I think that is fully in accord with what his right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities laid down as a principle when initiating the Debate.
In peace-time all the local services will be recruited and administered locally.
There are training schemes which, I confess, have not actually begun yet, but which will be devised centrally under Sir John Hodsoll. It is not really surprising that at the moment there should not be training schemes and training schools in existence, and I feel that I need make no apology for that. The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton himself pointed out that, on the whole, people are bored stiff with Civil Defence, and this would not be a good moment to try to start voluntary schools and classes—when the problems are still in a somewhat undigested state, when they could be given no up-to-date equipment for meeting the new dangers which would have to be met in a new war, and when, as he said, they are not predisposed to take an interest in the subject.
In the course of this Debate, not much has been said about the functions of the regional organisation, the regional commander, or the regional controller. In order to meet any possible criticism by local authorities, I would say that it seems that, with the greatly increased power of destruction of modern weapons, destruction might very easily not be isolated within a local authority area, but might cover virtually the whole of a local authority area. Therefore, it seems that, operationally, it is vital that the area to be covered should transcend the area of almost every local authority in the country. It is this fact of the greatly increased destruction which has to be envisaged that dictates the proposal that there should be a regional rather than a local-authority organisation.
The finance proposals are specifically put forward in the financial paragraphs as the basis for discussion. The proposal is that the Exchequer will pay all major capital expenditure, and that local Civil Defence services will, as far as possible, be attached to existing services and attract a grant on the same scale as the parent services. We are now awaiting comments on these proposals. Most of the comments have come in from local authorities, and we are expecting very shortly to have meetings with local authorities on many aspects of this Memorandum. I can assure the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare), who seems to think that there has been great delay, that, in fact, there has not been any delay. Local authorities

were asked to make their comments only by mid-March. It will be seen, therefore, that the time has only just passed when these comments should be in, and conversations are about to begin.

Mr. Hare: I was under the impression that this document went out to local authorities on 1oth December.

Mr. Younger: I think that it did, but this is a matter which requires a certain amount of cogitation, and it does not seem that the delay is unreasonable for the digestion of an extremely important subject. That is all I can say about the organisation which has been set up. I have dealt with a central planning organisation. I have not added much which could not be gathered from the various Government statements which have already been made, but I hope that I have made it plain that there is a well-defined responsibility, with a committee and a joint planning staff below it, and that above all there has been and is research continuously into all the things which Members would wish. It is quite untrue to imagine that research has not been prosecuted very energetically merely because the results have not been, probably quite rightly, made public.
The Government and their advisers are fully alive to all the problems which have been raised in this Debate. Before this Debate began, I knew that many questions would be asked to which I should probably be unable to give concise answers, but I can assure hon. Members that the views they have expressed will be a contribution to this matter, and will be taken fully into account by the Government and in the conversations which take place. Inevitably, there are many unknown facts which still defy assessment. It is very understandable that there should be impatience, particularly among those who gave such good service in the war, and who are anxious to see that the personnel and the organisation do not fall away.
I must ask for some further patience. We are very anxious to retain their goodwill, but there must be some further time before there can be any voluntary recruiting and training undertaken. We welcome very much the activities of the Civil Defence clubs which have been set up and are helping to retain many former members' interest in this subject, and


enable members to come together and in many cases hear lectures giving information about the results of the analysis by the Government staff of the experience of the war. It would not contribute to morale to start training prematurely when there is altogether too vague a problem for them to handle. I do not think that it would be any contribution to efficiency to equip them until rather more is known about the precise equipment which will be needed. I ask the House to accept my assurance that research is going on in no leisurely manner but with great energy, and that there is now, in being, appropriate machinery for the co-operation of the many agencies inevitably involved in this problem. His Majesty's Government while giving way to no ill-founded panic, have in no way under-estimated the importance of proper preparation in this important sphere of defence.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the Under-Secretary say that the Government accept the principle that if Civil Defence is in a proper state of preparedness it can, in fact, act as a deterrent to war, and have an effect before war begins? All that he has said tonight seems to suggest that the Government are regarding Civil Defence only as being of use after a war has begun.

Mr. Younger: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot have been listening to any of the things that I said about training. I devoted part of my speech to the peacetime organisation, and if he had been following my argument I think that he would have realised that that must of necessity apply to a period before war has broken out.

Mr. Howard: We have had a great many references to the Memorandum. Could that Memorandum be made available to hon. Members?

Mr. Ede: Any hon. Member who would like to have a copy can get it on applying to the Home Office. If it is considered desirable that it should be generally available, I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Vote Office.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

CLAUSE 30.—(Investigation into working of provisions as to amount of payments to local authorities under Part II.)

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 19, at end, insert:
Provided that if the Secretary of State is satisfied on representations made t) him by any local authority or by any such association as aforesaid that the first of the said investigations should be made in a year prior to the year 1952–53, he shall cause an investigation to be made in that prior year, and in that event the foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect with the substitution of that prior year for the year 1952–53 or such later year as aforesaid.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

10.24 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: This Amendment deals with a matter on which there has been very great controversy ever since the Bill was first introduced into this House. That is whether the equalisation grants are to be calculated in a way which will give equality of treatment as between England and Wales and Scotland. The Government have recognised that the different systems of valuation and rating existing between the two parts of the United Kingdom make it necessary for them to introduce a figure to give more justice to Scotland, and the figure chosen is 25 per cent. in addition to the figure for England and Wales. There has not been any proper defence or justification for that figure. Lord Morrison, in speaking on this matter in another place, did attempt to make some defence, but he was merely arguing from figures which were quite irrelevant and in no way helped to arrive at a proper judgment. Indeed, I have come to the conclusion that he must have been speaking from a brief prepared by the Ministry of Health and not by the Scottish Office.
The Secretary of State's only defence or justification of the figure was that it had been in existence for some 27 years. He said he took it from the party which now sits on this side of the House, but it was in very different circumstances and applied in very different ways, because


now the whole basis on which a grant is calculated is on the rateable value per head of the population. When this figure was last used for the purpose of calculating an Exchequer grant the principal basis of the sum which had to be calculated was population weighted for unemployment and several other things. Here the sole criterion is rateable value. The right hon. Gentleman attempted on the Third Reading to show that the matter required further investigation. He said:
It is a matter which would require a far greater investigation than could possibly be carried out under the cover of a Bill of this kind.
He further remarked:
I gave Glasgow a pledge, and I give the hon. and gallant Member a pledge, that we will have these figures examined and try to make some investigation into this matter to see if we can come to a conclusion as to the relative merits of the 25 per cent. or some other percentage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 1875, 1877.]
As the Bill then stood the right hon. Gentleman would not appear to have any possibility of carrying out that pledge, but this Amendment gives him the chance of doing so. We on this side of the House welcome the Amendment, and we trust that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way at the earliest possible moment to make a complete investigation into this matter. We do not believe 25 per cent. is either just or equitable to Scotland. We believe that this has been proved conclusively especially by the Corporation of the city of Glasgow, and we hope, therefore, in the interests of Scotland, that he will see that the matter is investigated without any further delay.

CLAUSE 35.—(Draft lists.)

Lords Amendment: Page 22, line 6, leave out "a copy," and insert "three copies."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

Mr. Speaker: There are many Amendments to page 22 which seem to me to be consequential, and I think they should be taken together.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: As far as I can see, all the Amendments down to page 41 hang together. To take all the Amendments from page 22 down to those to page 41 as drafting would be quite satisfactory to us on this side.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): There are five Amendments here all of which deal with the same point, namely, that the valuation officer has to send three copies instead of one. That is obviously convenient to the rating authority. They are used for putting on church doors and similar places and it seems to be a suitable arrangement.

10.30 p.m.

Colonel Wheatley: This requires a little comment, because, while I do not think anyone is to blame, any Member with experience of local government will wonder why this important if simple Amendment is being left to such a late stage in the progress of the Bill. It was discussed fully when Amendments were put forward at an earlier stage, but the Minister was a little stubborn about it and put up two lines of defence. First, he did not think it necessary and, secondly, he thought that the cost and staff were not necessary. I am glad that he has changed his mind and has found himself able to agree, and has brought this matter into line with the Amendment secured on Report which deleted Subsection (2), of Clause 61. The whole thing is now brought in and I think the local authorities will be very glad that the Minister has been able to accept this proposal without any difficulty.

CLAUSE 48.—(Sittings, procedure and powers of local valuation courts.)

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 29, at end, insert:
and to examine any witness before the court and to call witnesses.

Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: On a point of Order. Was this Amendment, page 33, line 29, at end insert——

Mr. Speaker: That Amendment has been passed.

Mr. Walker-Smith: May I respectfully point out that you asked the Minister whether all these Amendments were of a drafting character.

Mr. Speaker: I asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who is in charge on the Front Opposition Bench what he wanted to be called en bloc, and he went down to page 41. I accepted what he said. I do not know if the hon. Member was present at the time, but I accepted what I thought his leader had requested.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not depart from anything my right hon. and gallant Friend has put forward, but I was certainly under the impression, and I was possibly not alone in that, that what he said was subject to the assurance for which I understood you, Sir, to ask, that these Amendments were of a drafting character. If I may respectfully ask, can this Amendment be so described?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot go back on what has already passed. I did not ask if they were all drafting. I suggested that they appeared to me to be drafting and if it was for the convenience of the House to put them en bloc. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, on the Front Opposition Bench, agreed. He accepted all those on page 22 together and I accepted them, then he went on right down to page 41 and said he had no point on them. It is really not a question of whether they are drafting Amendments or not.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Whatever may be the understanding of this House as a whole, I would like at any rate to go on record that I do not accept it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member missed his opportunity. I said very carefully, page 27, page 31, page 33, page 39. Why did not the hon. Member get up when I said, "Page 39"? I want to be fair to hon. Members and I do not want to waste their time. Surely that was clearly open and the hon. Member might have taken advantage of it.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I can only give the answer that I was in some difficulty in hearing the precise Amendments being put. If I missed it, then I am prepared to accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: On this occasion it was my mistake. I may have inadvertently given the impression to the hon. Gentleman and the House that I had no opposition as far down as page 43. I think the mistake was mine and I take the responsibility.

CLAUSE 67.—(Membership of local authority, etc., not to be disqualification in certain cases.)

Lords Amendment: Page 41, line I, leave out from "act" to first "as" in line 2.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

Colonel Wheatley: This is a very important Amendment. It was moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory), and the Minister undertook to consider it again. He rather gave the impression that the Inland Revenue regulations would prevent a valuation officer being a member of a local authority, but we never heard the conclusion of Minister's investigation, because the relevant Amendment was not called on the Report stage. However, it has now come before this House, and I wish to say again that it is a very valuable Amendment which the Minister has done well to accept.

Mr. Challen: I do not want to speak on quite the same point as my hon. Friend, but on the Amendment which follows on line 30. I do not know whether I would be in Order in making observations now. I am rather puzzled as to just when I should break in.

Mr. Speaker: I am a little diffident, after the last incident, about saying how far we can go in putting the Amendments en bloc. But I thought that all these Amendments on page 41 might hang together for the convenience of the House.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I would have thought that, for the convenience of the House, the Amendments down to line 16 hang together distinctly. But the Amendments from line 30 to the foot of the page make a different group, some of my hon. Friends think. As far as line i6, we think they hang together, as has already been mentioned.

Mr. Speaker: Then I think the hon. Member's point will come in later.

CLAUSE 69.—(Use of Public Rooms.)

Lords Amendment: In line 3o, leave out "shall be entitled to require," and insert, "may request the permission of."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

Mr. Challen: I want to make a few observations on the various Amendments which follow from line 30 on page 41 to line 28 on page 42. We on this side of the House are very glad to see these Amendments introduced now, coming, though they do from another place. In earlier stages we introduced Amendments which would have served the same purpose as these Amendments which have been accepted by the Government. The effect of them is to regulate the right of a valuation officer to commandeer premises for a local authority, to set up negotiating machinery, and to make more reasonable provision. I am glad that the Government, at this late stage, has seen fit to accept the provisions which we put before the Committee.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I wish to echo the views of my hon. Friend. It is indeed a welcome change to find the voluntary principle being applied in place of the compulsive principle in regard to accommodation. I should like to be able conscientiously to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon it, but I do feel, as I am sure other hon. Members on this side feel, that nothing except exigencies of time would have moved the Government enough to accept a principle which they denied us when we put it forward with equal reason and force at an earlier stage of the Bill.

CLAUSE 72.—(Commencement of Part III and transitional provisions.)

Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 8, after second "different" to insert "rating."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

Mr. J. H. Hare: My hon. Friends on this side of the House are very pleased with this Amendment, although it does not go so far as we had hoped. These new lists will come in in different areas at different times, and we should like to ask if we can have an assurance that, so far as possible, the new lists should come into force over the whole country more or less at the same time, although certain areas would work the new lists at a later date. Could the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that it is his intention to bring in the new lists everywhere at more or less the same time?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I would like to support my hon. Friend. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us such an assurance?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I do not think that assurances are any better for repetition, and, in this case, they were given on the Second Reading, in Committee and on the Third Reading.

CLAUSE 76.—(Meaning of "hypothetical 1938 cost of construction.")

Lords Amendment: In page 47, line 30, a+ end, to insert:
and any person shall be entitled to obtain from the rating authority a copy thereof for his own use upon payment to the authority of such fee as may be prescribed by regulations of the Minister.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Bevan.]

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This Amendment continues the elucidation of the hypothetical case to which the right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly referred. It is now necessary to make sure that any person may obtain from the rating authority a copy, and I submit that this is very necessary when one reads the relevant Clauses of the Bill. The Minister can, by this means, produce a new hypothesis which, as I have pointed out more than once during the course of this Bill through the House, will cause more difficulty than the old hypothesis from which he is now departing. These cumbersome calculations shall be obtainable by the citizen whenever he wishes, but whether he will be able to understand


them when he gets them, I am not sure. At any rate he will be able to get an entry in the hypothetical Domesday Book which is being compiled, and I hope he will find it very serviceable.

CLAUSE 80.—(Other small post-1918 dwelling-houses, except flats and maisonettes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 50, leave out from first "of" to "estimated," and insert:
the value of the site on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. I. Edwards.]

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: This Amendment is concerned with the important question of the method of valuation of private dwelling-houses and the effect is appreciably to diminish, in one respect at any rate, the difference of treatment between the local authority house and the private house. The original wording of this Clause added, in respect of these private dwelling-houses, 5 per cent. of the site value at the time when the value was computed, whereas the local authority sites were valued at the fixed pre-war valuation. The merit of this Amendment, in the eyes of those who sit on these benches, is that it does peg down the value of the private dwelling-house. It is true that it pegs it down to the postwar value as at 1st April, 1949, but it has the effect of preventing the possibility of an ascending scale of values of sites in respect of private houses, whereas the local authority houses are pegged down to a fixed value. As far as that prevents an increasing discrimination against the private dwelling-house we are glad it has been incorporated in the Bill by the other place.

CLAUSE 115.—(Meaning of "approved duty.")

Lords Amendment: In page 8o, line 1, leave out from "body" to "for" in line 2.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am very glad that the amendments to this Clause have been proposed. There was considerable concern in this matter of the payment of expenses of members of local authorities. It is, of course, a very embarrassing point, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the Amendments inserted by the Lords, because they do remove what so many of us regard to be a point of great difficulty. Unless power of decision rests with the central body or the local authority, complications may arise. These Amendments make the position clearer and fairer for all concerned.

CLAUSE 121.—(Provisions as to precepts for expenses of Metropolitan Police.)

Lords Amendment: In page 85, in line 23, after "Fund," insert
being expenses for which provision is not otherwise made.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

Mr. Challen: This is an Amendment which we do not altogether welcome, but for my part it has been made much more satisfactory than it appeared originally. It raises a point which was rejected on the Committee stage, but has now been made good in another place. Ai the present time the expenses of the Metropolitan Police courts are paid for by precept, and the whole of the Metropolitan area is wider than the area of the Metropolitan boroughs which, generally speaking get the benefit of the Metropolitan Police Force. Of course, that wider area has its own petty sessional courts, and an anomaly arises in those areas outside the Metropolitan boroughs which have to pay the Metropolitan police rate. I think the opinion in London was that this kind of amendment could best have waited until a more suitable occasion. For my own part I am grateful to the Minister for having met this little difficulty.
It so happens that the borough I represent possesses not only a Metropolitan Police court but a petty sessional court as well. About half, or little less than half, of the borough has is own petty sessions, and the other half comes in the Metropolitan Police area, so that under this Clause we should have had to be-


differentially rated, as between two halves of the borough. It would not have saved very much for the one half and it would have cost a great deal in complication, far outweighing any saving. That has been met by giving the Minister certain powers which can be invoked by local authorities. I do not know whether there are any other cases—I do not think that there are; we are satisfied with the Clause, though, I repeat, on the whole we would rather it had not been there.

Mr. Pargiter: I am very grateful to the Minister for meeting the point which I raised previously. I hardly anticipated when he promised to look at this again that we should be successful in getting a very complicated Amendment inserted in the Bill at so late a stage. I appreciate the handsome way in which the Minister has met us.

CLAUSE 131.—(Provision of entertainments.)

Lords Amendment: In page 93, line 16, at end, insert:
(4) A local authority who propose to borrow money for any of the purposes authorised under this Section shall, before applying to the Minister for his consent to the borrowing, publish in such local newspapers, and in such other ways, if any, as appear to them best suited for bringing the matter to the attention of persons concerned, notice of their proposal, specifying the amount which and the purposes for which they propose to borrow and the time (not being less than twenty-eight days from the publication of the notice) within which any objection to the proposal may be made to the Minister.
(5) Where any such objection as is mentioned in the last preceding Subsection is made to the Minister within the time specified in the notice aforesaid and is not withdrawn, the Minister shall not, unless in his opinion the objection is frivolous, consent to the borrowing of any money for the purposes in question until he has caused a public local inquiry to be held into the proposal, and, in considering whether or not to give his consent to the borrowing of any money for those purposes, he shall consider the report of the person by whom the inquiry was held.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir Alan Herbert: I really did expect that the right hon. Gentleman would say something about this Clause. This House has been grossly deceived. It is one of the most shocking

examples of deception in my experience of this House. In this place, when this Clause was first introduced, we all, including myself, made high-falutin' speeches about art, culture, education, films, drama, music and so on. No other kind of entertainment was suggested. On the Third Reading, I suggested to this House that in my opinion this Clause covered all sorts of sporting entertainment, boxing, horse-racing, greyhound racing——

Mr. Speaker: It is not the Clause that is now being discussed, but only the Amendment made in another place.

Sir A. Herbert: I ask you respectfully, Sir, to be as elastic as you can in your interpretation of the rules of Order, because the House is in great confusion about this Clause. I say that this House has been deceived, and the right hon. Gentleman has made no explanation whatever. May I put it this way? We do not know what this Amendment means. We read that local a local authority may borrow money for the purposes authorised under this Section. We do not know what the purposes authorised are. Three Ministers here, and two in another place, have spoken on this matter, but not one of them has mentioned anything but art, culture, drama and so forth. I say that this Clause covers greyhound racing, horse-racing and other entertainments which (a) pay Entertainment Duty, (b) are always accompanied by betting. There may be much to be said for such entertainments, but this House ought not to allow these "purposes" to go forward under the cover of a Clause which pretends to be for the cultivation of art and drama and so on. My hon. Friend, the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) like me, is keen on the civic theatre but if this is going to allow civic betting to be made possible throughout the country it is a disgraceful thing.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: There is on the Paper an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, about betting. I was not going to call it because I considered it irrelevant to the subject of the Bill. Therefore, I cannot have betting discussed.

Sir A. Herbert: If you will bear with me for a moment Sir, this is relevant and ought to be discussed. This Bill and this


Clause deal with entertainments to be provided by local authorities. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to consult the Law Officers, and he has not done so. It also covers horse-racing——

Mr. Bevan: The Clause, in my respectful submission, is not before the House.

Sir A. Herbert: This Amendment includes greyhound racing and horse-racing.

Mr. Speaker: The Amendment including greyhound and horse-racing is not before the House at the moment. I did not call the hon. Member to move that Amendment to the Lords Amendment because, frankly, it also is out of Order. Betting is irrelevant, and a licence is not required for greyhound racing or horse racing unless it is connected with betting. Therefore that Amendment is out of Order too. I am afraid I did not gather to what the hon. Member was addressing himself.

Sir A. Herbert: We are discussing the Lords Amendment in line 16. Now I think we have popped to line 20, dealing with boxing or wrestling.

Mr. Speaker: We have not got as far as line 20 yet.

Sir A. Herbert: We are now discussing the Lords Amendment in line 16, to which I have an Amendment about betting.

Mr. Speaker: Which, I regret, is out of Order, being irrelevant.

Sir A. Herbert: I am prepared to discuss this Amendment without going into betting if you so rule, Mr. Speaker, but I am saying again that this Clause which, according to Ministers, deals only with art, culture and the drama, does include horse-racing and greyhound racing. I am asking whether——

Mr. Bevan: This Lords Amendment does not concern itself with such matters at all. I respectfully suggest that we cannot discuss the contents of the Clause itself.

Mr. Speaker: We can only discuss the two Amendments to the Clause which are before the House. We cannot go into the whole Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Amendment says:
A local authority who propose to borrow money for any of the purposes authorised under this section …

I respectfully suggest that the construction of a greyhound racing stadium might reasonably be one of the purposes. I think my hon. Friend is intimating, in his view, that it would be undesirable.

Mr. Bevan: He may think it is undesirable, but in my submission his views as to whether or not it would be undesirable are entirely out of Order because all that this Amendment does is to say that there shall be a public local inquiry when loans are required for any purposes in the class of purposes which is now the subject of debate. It lays down what procedure should be followed in order to make local citizens aware of the intention of the local authority in question. There is nothing added here. It does not matter what the Clause includes.

Sir A. Herbert: I challenge the right hon. Gentleman—does it include greyhound racing?

Mr. Bevan: It may include blowing bubbles, but all the Amendment does is to lay down the fact that if a loan is required under the Clause there shall be a local inquiry and the local citizens shall be informed of that fact in order that they may make their views known. All that this Amendment really does is to impose on the Minister of Health the statutory obligation for a practice which, in fact, is always carried out, because when a local authority applies for a loan the Ministry of Health holds a local public inquiry. What this Amendment does is to write this practice on the face of the statute.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is true that the Clause so broadened the powers of the local authorities that the Minister has found it desirable to impose a limitation upon himself which previously did not exist by statute. That is so on the Minister's own confession, and I have been quoting his very words. Here the Minister has written into this Bill a limitation which, if this Clause is passed, would not have existed before, and it will be binding upon him and his successors, until, of course, Parliament alters it. Wide and sweeping powers are given to local authorities under the Clause. They are really wide and sweeping powers the precise nature of which it would not be competent to discuss at this time, but they were inserted in another place and I do not think the Minister would deny——

Mr. Bevan: It is one of the limitations under which Ministers suffer that when Amendments come back from another place neither the period of gestation which occurs in another place nor the facts surrounding the Amendment can be argued. One of the suggestions which originally arose was that there should be a limitation imposed on the operation of this Clause by insisting that the powers should not be exercised by the local authority until first a town's meeting and a ballot had taken place. That we cannot accept. In substitution for that grave limitation, we have accepted this Amendment because in practice it imposes no limitation whatsoever.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That may be so —but it is in fact accurate to say that it does impose a limitation.

Mr. Bevan: No.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In practice the Minister admits it imposes a statutory limitation; if it were not so it would not be here. The Minister has accepted the Amendment because of the wide and sweeping nature of the powers given under this Clause. It was to those wide and sweeping powers which the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) was addressing himself, and while he is grateful that a certain amount of limitation has been imposed, he would have preferred that a much greater limitation was imposed. He is perfectly in Order in complimenting the Minister on the distance he has gone and in regretting that it is not possible for him to go further. He has been handed a bouquet and a half-brickbat, and I am sure the Minister, who has so often employed either or both methods, would not object to one of them being applied in this case—or, indeed, both of them.

Mr. Benn Levy: I do not want to confuse the issue of the question of betting with any other matters, but I am bound to say that in accepting this Amendment my right hon. Friend's incorrigible amenability has betrayed him because there must be very serious disadvantages. First of all, I am not very clear who conducts the inquiries and who appoints the persons. Is it a local man?

Mr. Bevan: It is the Minister's Inspector.

Mr. Levy: It seems to be far harder to ensure what exactly these persons have to inquire into. It seems to be quite clear, for example, that they can inquire into a material problem such as whether local rates should be raised or not for a theatre in a certain authority's area. There was a kind of logic in the original contention to which my right hon. Friend has drawn attention and which provided for a plebiscite which would have been constructive. There is no reason for a plebiscite in this or in any other matter, but at least it made sense. What is this man delegated to find out? I should like an answer to that question before we go any further.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I welcome this Amendment. The Minister may remember that at an earlier stage I raised this point. I argued at the time that though the Minister's case was that the issue could be put to the local electors who elect a fit and proper local authority to carry out their desires, it was possible for a local authority so to commit itself to a long-term capital expenditure that its successor could give no redress to the electors, because the commitments would be so heavy that it would cost more to get out than to go on. While the limitation in this Amendment does not go so far as I would like, it removes a grave part of the danger. Whether the enterprise is one for blowing bubbles or pricking bubbles, does not arise under this Amendment. Possibly the Minister would agree that he was out of Order to that degree in that it would involve no capital expenditure so far as I know. At least, he is an expert on both and he will appreciate the feeling of his hon. Friend. With great respect, I would also say that he was blowing bubbles too without looking at the Amendment. He suggested that there was nothing to be inquired into, but I suggest he is entirely wrong, for there is a great deal to be inquired into. He seemed to omit Subsection 5, which gives consideration to whether the public local inquiry is to be held, but surely a local public inquiry exactly meets the needs which he mentioned so that the local electors could be asked exactly what the objection was. There is no point in putting an Amendment in a Bill to make it possible for people to object, unless it can be discovered what they are objecting to, and the public local inquiry will give


an opportunity for discovering what the objection is, who is objecting and why.

Mr. Levy: But in the nature of the case the only conceivable objection that a man could make is, "I do not want it."

Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is a very limiting suggestion. If that were the only objection necessary by hon. Members in this House, there would not be any need of debate at all. All one side would need to do would be to say, "We do not want it," and that would be the end of it.

Mr. Levy: In this case what else can there be?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: In all seriousness there can be all sorts of objections. There could be an objection that capital was to be borrowed and invested in all sorts of schemes which could not possibly show a reasonable return. Again, a local authority might suggest entering into——

Mr. Levy: Mr. Levyrose——

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am putting the arguments of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Levy: The hon. Member is putting them all wrong.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Member was seriously suggesting that the case was much more simple than, in fact, it might be. Without the power to arrange for a local public inquiry the Bill was most dangerous. I welcome the protection that has been given. Might I submit, in conclusion, that it shows that though this House may be democratic, democracy is frequently, strongly and well protected by another place.

11.15 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I support this point strongly. In reply to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) surely he will consider this possibility: if the project is to build a theatre, say, for which the local authority is only desiring to borrow £1,000, it is obvious that that would be a farcical proposal, and the project would be doomed before it began. The holding of a local inquiry in that case would clearly preclude the authority embarking on futile operations inevitably bound for disaster.

Mr. Levy: Surely that is equally applicable to any other undertaking of a local authority. Therefore, there is no reason to discriminate in this particular instance.

Sir W. Darling: This is a complete departure from what local authorities have hitherto done. There is universal recognition of the need for projects connected with water supply, gas, or sewage, but the same view is not so generally held about the items under this Clause. Until public opinion is more enlightened on the desirability of local authorities providing cinemas and theatres, the hon. Member will have to wait for that happy occasion. While being grateful for what he has called the incorrigible amenability of the Minister, I would prefer him to return to the older Socialist idea of the referendum. It disappoints me to learn how many Socialist ideas are being abandoned. The referendum would have been a much more convenient method. None the less, I would prefer the Clause as it is. Too little or too much is the protection this Amendment gives. The local authority, presenting its proposals in either grandiose or simple fashion, secures its support. I f it is too grandiose, the electors, quite rightly, will leave it to others more competent to deal with these matters. I strongly support this Amendment. I suspect it will largely stultify the project that the local authorities should go in for the exploitation of art.

Mr. Walker-Smith: As one who has been a supporter of public local inquiries on all suitable occasions since I have been a Member of this House, I naturally welcome the inclusion of this Amendment. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Lang) shows himself a good deal less familiar with the machinery of local inquiries than with that of the theatre, of which he is so distinguished an ornament. Otherwise he would have realised that one of the good things about this provision is that it does not limit the scope of the objections, and he may rest assured that at these inquiries objections would be taken over a fairly wide front. The Minister's Department holds a great number of inquiries, and not a few in regard to local authority loans. There is nothing new in all that.
I would like to put to the Minister two points of detail in which, it seems to me, this provision is a little different from those we are accustomed to in regard to local inquiries. The first is in regard to the provision for notice by advertisement. The Home Secretary shakes his head, but there is provision, as there should be, for


publication in local newspapers—that is in a general way notice by advertisement, as distinct from individual notice served on individual people. It is, of course, subject to the proviso in the Bill that it is only for publication
in such local newspapers, and in such other ways, if any, as appear to them (that is, the authority) best suited for bringing the matter to the attention of persons concerned.
It is not unusual to be a little more specific in providing for notice by advertisement and to specify either the number of newspapers in which such advertisement will occur, the number of times on which it will occur, or the period within which it will be repeated. I would like the Minister to inform the House why this normal precedent has been departed from on this occasion.
The second point of procedure to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is in the new proposed Subsection (5), where it says in regard to the withdrawal of objections,
the Minister shall not, unless in his opinion the objection is frivolous, consent.…
I would be the last to claim any cyclopaedic knowledge of precedents, but running over quickly in my mind the Acts with which I am familiar dealing with these subjects, I do not recall that particular form of words. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform the House, when he has finished his consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland, where these words are drawn from or whether they are peculiar to this Bill. It seems to me that one of the vices of our legislation is the increase of the discretion of the Minister in deciding upon matters such as this. I do not myself think it is necessary in this case that the Minister should be given the unfettered discretion of deciding whether or not an objection is frivolous without at any rate making some attempt to define what will be considered frivolous for the purpose of the Clause. Of course, if he can point to other Acts where this same form of words has been used, and used successfully and without difficulty, that would naturally be a very persuasive argument, but if these words are novel to this Act, then I for one would think them of very doubtful advantage indeed in this Amendment, which on the whole I, in common with most other Members of the House, would approve.

Mr. Bevan: I would not have accepted this Amendment at all if I thought for one moment that any such construction could be placed upon it as that put by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir, W. Darling). The purpose of this Amendment is very simple. When a local authority applies for permission to borrow money an inquiry is held in order that the Minister may inform himself of all the facts. That inquiry is held for a double purpose—not only to inquire into the facts of the case and give people an opportunity of stating objections to the project, but also to enable the Minister to give his consent to raise money. If the local authority was able to raise money without any consent at all, the Minister of Health and the Government would have no control whatever of the investment programme of the local authorities. There must be some relationship between the sum of money that local authorities propose to borrow and the capital investment of the country and the circumstances of the times. That is why the inquiries are held. But it would be an abuse of the power to give consent to a loan if any Minister of Health used such power to frustrate the intentions of the statute. The intention here is to give local authorities the power to do all the things set out in the Clause. No Minister would be doing his duty if he used the power to withhold consent to prevent a local authority doing what Parliament clearly intends it to do. Therefore, the construction placed upon this by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh is wholly erroneous.

Sir W. Darling: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this question for me? Under this Amendment, members of the public who disagree with the local authority will surely have the right to give evidence in support of their disagreement, and to this the Minister would give some consideration.

Mr. Bevan: But the Minister is not in a position to arbitrate between one section of the ratepayers and another. If a council did decide to build a theatre and a body of ratepayers said that it did not like the council's decision, the Minister of Health would be in a most invidious position if he had to put himself into the position of an arbitrator between the two bodies. The power to withhold consent


to a loan is there, anyhow. All that is done here is to write into the face of this Bill a provision which is normally exercisable, but it does not limit the local authority.

Mr. Levy: May I point out that I did not say that it limited the local authority. What I meant to imply was that it gave a great opportunity for obstruction, and that that was the whole purpose of this Amendment from the Lords.

Mr. Bevan: It is not an additional opportunity for obstruction. The inquiry would be held, anyhow; it would be a public, not a private inquiry. My hon. Friend should realise that all applications for a loan by a local authority are the subject of a public local inquiry. Therefore, nothing is done here except, as I said earlier, to write into the Bill what is a normal practice in such circumstances. But I put it on record that it would be an abuse of a Minister's power if he used this right of consent to withhold from a local authority what Parliament obviously intends to give to it.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am sure the Minister did not mean any implication that he was whittling down the last line of Subsection (5), which states that he shall consider the report of the person by whom the inquiry was held.

Mr. Bevan: I do not know how the hon. Member can read that into what I have said. If the Minister has sent an inspector to hold an inquiry he will read the inspector's report.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure that the Minister does not in turn mean to whittle down the assurance given by his right hon. Friend, in another place, where, in his statement of Government policy, he said he agreed with the Amendment fairly and straightforwardly. Would it be fair and straightforward should the Minister, finding a considerable body of opinion against the expenditure and having the right to arbitrate in his hands, to give sanction to the loan? Was not that the policy stated in another place?

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 93, line 20, after "films," insert "or for boxing or wrestling entertainments."

11.30 p.m.

Sir A. Herbert: May I move the Amendment standing in my name, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No, I did not select it, because it would have no effect whatever unless the Lords Amendment dealt with betting, and as I have ruled out betting as a subject extraneous to this Bill, it is quite unnecessary. It is purely consequential on the first.

Sir A. Herbert: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, it is the second Amendment. After "boxing and wrestling," I wish to add "or for horse-racing, greyhound racing or other sporting entertainments."

Mr. Speaker: It is quite unnecessary so long as it is not connected with betting, and I have not selected it.

Sir A. Herbert: Then, Sir, may I discuss the Lords Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: No, it has been agreed to.

Sir A. Herbert: I stood up in my place at once. I claim my rights. With respect, Sir, you are not holding to the promise of your inaugural speech, in my opinion, for standing up for minorities.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will resume his seat.

Sir A. Herbert: I will get out of this place.

Lords Amendment: In page 94, line 17, at end insert:

"(a) no money shall be borrowed for the purposes authorised under this Section except with the consent of the Secretary of State;
(b) for any reference to the Minister there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Mr. Walker-Smith: I rise only to ask a question as to the variations between the English and Scottish procedure, and to express the hope that the Minister will be able to answer that point about procedure now, since he left unanswered the point I made in my previous speech.

Commander Galbraith: I would like to ask for an elucidation of this Amendment. The point at issue is this; what is


the point of having paragraph (a)? Would the matter not be covered by paragraph (b)? There must be some point in it, or otherwise the Minister would not have accepted the Amendment.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): The point is that it is not necessary, in Scotland, to have the consent of the Secretary of State unless a council carries the decision by a two-thirds majority, under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1947. It is necessary to put this part in so that it will be an obligation on the council under this Clause.

Sir W. Darling: Do I understand that the two-thirds majority demand has now gone, and that the council will be required to produce an absolute majority?

Mr. Woodburn: No money shall be borrowed for the purposes in this Clause except with the consent of the Secretary of State.

CLAUSE 134.—(Instruction, lectures, etc., on questions relating to local government.)

Lords Amendment: In page g6, line 36, at end, insert new Clause:

"Assistance by local authorities to other bodies
—A local authority in England or Wales, may, with the consent of the Minister given either generally or specially, contribute towards the expenses of any body carrying on activities within the area of that authority, being activities for the purpose of furthering the development of trade, industry or commerce therein, or of giving advice, information or other assistance to persons resident therein, or otherwise for the benefit of that area or those persons.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Bevan.]

Mr. Hare: I should like to welcome this Clause. I understand it will enable local authorities to co-operate with the Board of Trade in the work of assisting industrial development in their respective areas. If it will do something to alleviate what really is a most disquieting series of circumstances at the moment I think we should welcome it very much. Anyone who has followed the work of local authorities in trying to attract industry

to their estates will realise the appalling difficulties which both industry and the local authorities have had in getting the Board of Trade to reach decisions quickly. So far as London is concerned, it may interest the House to have these figures: out of 117 applications which have been put forward by industry to move to sites reserved by the London County Council on their estates, only two applications have been approved and many have not even been considered although they have been put forward for some 18 months or more. I feel we should definitely welcome this Amendment, and I hope it will give the local authorities a chance to get decisions from the Board of Trade.

Mr. Walker-Smith: So far I have not been very successful in getting information from the Treasury bench but I will make one last attempt. I would like to ask, with regard to the words
the consent of the Minister given either generally or specially.
how it is envisaged that such consent be given generally or specially in regard to contributing
towards the expenses of any body carrying on activities within the area.
When the word "generally" is used in this Amendment does that envisage a general consent for prescribed bodies or general consent for all bodies, and will that be done by one statutory instrument or in what way? "Specially," I take it, means "individually." The Minister shakes his head but I hope for some sort of oral information as distinct from signs.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member puts his request with such courtesy that he is entitled to a full explanation. I am not certain whether some of the questions put are not put frivolously.

Mr. Walker-Smith: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to impute to me at this late hour a motive and to charge an hon. Member who is putting forward a serious argument with putting forward that argument frivolously? Is that not contrary to the practice of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I think we must carry on the Debate as best we can. It is getting late.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member put a point which he himself proceeded to answer. He asks whether "generally"


means a particular body. It does mean a body which is in general existence. It might be a development council, which exist almost everywhere, and in such cases general consent would be given. It would not be necessary to Ilse a statutory instrument. One does not need it to give a local authority consent to spend money. With regard to "special," it might be a special case in a particular area not reproducible in other areas where special application would be necessary.

Sir W. Darling: Is there any limit to the amount the local authorities in England or Wales might, by consent of the Minister, spend? Such widespread activities as the furthering of industry, trade or commerce might take large sums.

Mr. Bevan: In such circumstances the money involved will be taken into account.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several with Special Entries.]

Orders of the Day — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

CLAUSE 2.—(Determination of quotas of British films.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, in line 22, leave out Subsection (2).

11.42 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move, "That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The effect of the Amendment is to strike out from the Bill the provision about circuit theatres and pre-release cinemas, under which they were to be assigned higher quotas than the general run of exhibitors. The reason for this is that independent exhibitors, operating in a situation where they have to face heavy competition, are specially protected, and it is not essential to discriminate between them and the special quota theatres. In a highly competitive situation a better protection can be got under Clause 4. Since we can give them this protection there is no reason why all exhibitors should not be brought up to the same rate as the special quota theatres. I want to make it plain that this does not mean in any sense a weakening of our ideas about quotas as previously stated in this House.
It does not mean we intend to bring special quota theatres down to the level of the general run of exhibitors. Having provided the machinery for relief in cases of hardship or strong competition, we want to bring the others up to the level of the special quota level. We intend to use this to get the highest practicable quota. The recent film agreement made no difference in that connection.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I would draw attention to an occasion not dealt with under Clause 4. I think we can agree with this Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman will say that relief will be freely given to those who may not get special release cover by Clause 4.

Mr. Wilson: It is our intention to give this relief where it is needed.

CLAUSE 8.—(Composition of Cinematograph Films Council.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 4o, after "two" insert:
of whom one shall be appointed as representing makers of films not intended for general exhibition as first feature films.

Mr. Wilson: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is to give effect to a pledge I gave when this matter was before this House, that one of the four representatives should be a representative of the so-called specialised films not primarily intended as first feature films. I think that this fully implements the undertaking I gave.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CHINA CLAY INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: I apologise for bringing this matter forward at rather a late hour, but it is a matter of national importance. About a fortnight ago I asked the Lord President for time to debate the Report on the china clay industry which has been before this House for some time now. He was


not able to find time, and that is why I raise this subject on the Adjournment tonight. On page 3 the Report refers to the location of china clay. In three separate Parliamentary Divisions china clay plays a part—in my own Division, in the Division of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Studholme), and it plays a very great part in the Division of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. King). All Members present will be sorry to know that the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth is in hospital for a slight operation, and I feel certain that we all wish him a speedy recovery and a return to this House at the earliest opportunity.
I wish to stress that this matter of china clay is a matter of national importance and I bring it to the notice of the House tonight in order to pay tribute to those men who work in the industry and at the same time to bring certain matters to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade. It is a highly specialised industry and its basic raw material is of vital importance. If we look back on the course of years before the war—for 30 years—we find that on an average 70 per cent. of this material was exported abroad, about 800,000 tons in a year, which brings us in £3,500,000, with an additional freight of £1,000,000. The Board of Trade sponsors this industry and I sincerely trust that, with the great ramifications and difficulties which in the future this industry may have to overcome, it may never depart from the responsibility of that Ministry. I would not like to see it go to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. The earning capacity of this industry is extremely interesting. It is extremely good as a hard currency earner. I am told that about a ton of coal yields something like 400 dollars and when one realises that this industry works on a £750 per man yield, which I believe is against a figure of £500 in the case of coal, one must recognise that these are very interesting figures indeed. The labour force required for this industry is between 3,000 and 4,000 and while I am mentioning the question of labour' I think a tribute should be paid to the industry for the fact that, in spite of its difficulties, in spite of the very hard work it has to do, as far as I know, in every case, they have a full percentage of disabled men.
Now this Working Party Report has been in the hands of the Government for about six months. I believe it was about August, 1947, that it first reached the Board of Trade. I wish, first of all, to deal with the labour problem, because, although it is mentioned in this Report, I cannot see that the Board of Trade has as yet done anything about it. No doubt, the President of the Board of Trade is fully aware that at the present moment there are about 20o men coming from Redruth and Camborne to the St Austell district. That means 6o miles a day. Part of the payment of travelling time is paid to the men and the cost to the industry amounts to about £15,000 per annum over and above the normal wage rates, but the point I wish particularly to bring to the Minister's attention—and I am glad to see a representative of the Ministry of Health is here—is the question of houses. At least 30o are required for these labour forces alone and are needed urgently in that area, apart from the very great normal demand, which is very heavy indeed, to house these people. Before the war, about 76o houses were built by the industry itself.
This is a scattered industry and it is difficult to put it on the same plane as any other industry. On the question of the actual building, a great part of the material comes from the china clay sand itself and I suggest that with the enormous natural desire of these men to have these houses, the President and some of his colleagues should consider the possibility of getting these men to volunteer to build their own houses. I believe that the position is so desperate that the local unions might look favourably on this proposal.
Now, as to food, this is a very exhausting industry and hon. Members can imagine, in winter time, the change from dealing with icy trucks and dealing with boiling clay in drying kilns. The workers have always required a heavy portion of meat, but because of the scattered nature of the industry they cannot have the normal canteens. They can have only mobile canteens. Therefore, they want extra rations of meat. There is a certain extra ration, but not much, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will look with favour on what I am going to suggest. The Cornishman likes his pasty, but the President, knowing his Cornwall, knows the variations in the liking for the


pasty. One likes it with onions and another without, etc. That is an important factor and these present pasties are not like those that used to be made by their wives and mothers. Could not the President of the Board of Trade consider giving an additional ration on the ration card so that the wives and mothers could make their men the pasties they like. No doubt the importance of the pasty is realised by the right hon. Gentleman, who probably remembers the old Cornish tale that the Devil put a foot in Cornwall, but, learning that everything there is put into a pie, he withdrew it hastily, and has never been seen there since.
I turn to plant and equipment. The President of the Board of Trade knows that all through the Working Party's Report mention is made of the need of filter presses, mechanical dryers, handling and loading machines. He will also know that a great deal of commercial planning is necessary before submitting the plans for approval to his Department. Hon. Members can imagine how exasperating it is when the Department lets these plans lie for over three months without a decision. That is the kind of thing which is damping the enthusiasm of the people engaged in the industry.
On the question of coal, I think it will be remembered that the coal position in August, 1947, looked a little better; but it was not until January, 1948, that allocations were made to the china clay industry and then they were "laced" to particular exports to go to particular countries. This is really nonsense, because clay suitable for one market is not suitable for others, and when a pit is in operation, it is necessary from time to time to work first one side of the face and then on another in order to prevent the "overlay" from falling in. Consequently, percentages of different types of clay are produced at the same time, and it is impossible to know beforehand what the percentages will be. How can the Government, without the technical knowledge of a lifetime, arbitrarily state that coal should be "laced" in allocation to a particular type of clay produced for export to a specified country? Can anyone imagine anything more aggravating to an industry than to hear, as the china clay industry did, in a recent "Progress Report" on the B.B.C., that a sale of £5,000,000 worth of tractors was

made to a country to which they personally had not been allowed to export their clay?
It is very strange to notice, as regards the shipping position of the china clay industry with reference to continental exports, that 80 per cent. of these shipments are carried in foreign bottoms. This means that £500,000 is paid to foreign interests. I do not suggest that everything should be carried in British bottoms, but it seems unbalanced that 80 per cent. should not be so carried. I trust that my shipping friends will take due notice of this fact. There is also specialised work to be done in improving the dock facilities, etc., for handling china clay at Fowey, Charlestown and Par. There may be a great deal to be said for setting up a South-East Cornwall commission or committee to deal specifically with the ports I have mentioned.
I would like to mention a matter dealing with the truck situation. We might well get more trucks available if we took a more liberal attitude to truck repair. It might have been said in better times that it was wise to scrap trucks rather than repair them, but in our straitened circumstances today, we have to make use of all the trucks we can get hold of, in order to secure accelerated production, and therefore I suggest that we should carry on with a "make-do" policy. Does the Minister fully realise the position of the Eric engineering shop and the repair shop at Drinnick? The first was erected over 100 years ago, and was only intended for minor work, and with the acceleration of mechanisation it is inadequate in comfort and work for the men. Furthermore, tools and goods of all descriptions are lying open to the weather, when at quite small cost in labour the storage facilities could be improved out of all recognition, provided the licences were forthcoming.
There are two specific instances of delay which I would like to bring to the Minister's notice. The first is that of the L.A.I.R.A. Wharf. I see that the hon. Lady for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Middleton) is present; this wharf lies in her division. As the Minister will know, £350,000 has already been spent in modernising the pit and works which serve this wharf. On 9th December, 1947, application on the appropriate form was made to the Ministry


of Works to proceed with construction. On 7th January, 1948, a month later, a notification was received from the South-Western Regional Officer of the Board of Trade that the building licence application had been sent to them and would receive immediate attention. On 9th January, the china clay industry wrote to Bristol giving reasons for the urgent need of these shipping facilities. On 26th January the Board of Trade called to ask the industry to reduce costs and steel requirements; on 27th January people came to view the wharf. On 3rd February, the Board of Trade office at Bristol wrote for further particulars. On 27th February, the Board of Trade called for further information—since when no information has been received from any Government Department.
There is the question of the Old Beam Clay Kiln. No doubt the President of the Board of Trade knows about it, and if I may say so, when I first heard that I was getting this Adjournment I made inquiries about the industry. Here is a case where there was only a requirement of 10 tons of steel in order to complete a drying kiln which was going to produce 160,000 dollars a year for the export drive. Letters passed backwards and forwards on the question of whether a permit could or could not be granted, until 15th March, when it was said that it could not be granted. Then a letter was sent straight away to the effect that the matter was being raised on the Adjournment, and on Friday last the permit was granted. It could have been granted a great deal earlier. These delays should not happen.
I would refer the President of the Board of Trade to page 36 of this Report, of which no doubt he is well aware. He will notice that the matter there is mentioned as follows:
We might mention the case brought to our notice of a loading machine which would save the work of approximately six men; the cost of this machine purchased abroad is approximately £1,000, of which about £250 represents import duties.
I sincerely trust that if in this industry another 12 of these machines are wanted, there will be no hold-up for licences, because the President well knows what their value is. As to why there should be Import Duties on them, I do not know, because we do not make them at all in

the United Kingdom. Perhaps the President of the Board of Trade will mention something about that tonight. I want to give the right hon. Gentleman plenty of time so that he will be able to give an answer to most of these matters, and I hope he will also take advantage of the occasion to make reference to the fact that, although the china clay industry happens to be located only in Cornwall and Devon, it is of national importance, and therefore the management and the men engaged in the industry are playing a vital part as part of the shock troops in the "battle of the gap."

12.3 a.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I should say right away that we agree with what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) has just said, that though at this late hour we are discussing a localised industry and a very small industry in terms of manufacturing, we are discussing an industry of great national importance. The hon. Member has raised a considerable number of points, and I am afraid that I should not have time to deal with them in detail tonight, but I will undertake to go into those which I cannot discuss now and write to him. Perhaps later I may have a discussion with him about them.
I should like to deal now with one or two of the general points he has made about this industry. As he said, it is an earner of dollars for this country as an exporting industry, though it is perhaps right to say that, while it has exporting importance, we sometimes overlook its importance in the supply of raw materials for very many of our home industries. Of the 625,000 tons produced by the industry in 1947, about 40 per cent. was exported. This year we are hoping that production will rise to somewhere between 800,000 and 850,000 tons and that 6o per cent. of that increased figure will be exported. The hon. Gentleman referred to the exports to dollar areas. In 1947, the industry exported 83,000 tons to the United States alone. Over 110,000 tons, or 45 per cent. of its total exports went to the hardest currency markets like the United States, Canada and the Argentine. A further 35 per cent. went to other hard currency countries such as Belgium, Switzerland and Sweden. I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he remarks that


there are great possibilities for increasing exports to North America this year, especially the United States, and the target to which the industry is working very conscientiously to increase its total exports to the United States in this year is 275,000 tons, a very high figure.
I agree there are the difficulties which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. It is not so long ago that the industry was actually exporting 350,000 tons a year. That was in the twenties, and if we look back to those days we see that the Cornish industry held about 6o per cent. of the U.S. market in paper clays. Now it is less than ro per cent. At the same time it held 6o per cent. of the U.S. market in pottery clays. Now that is down to 4o per cent. We would like to see those figures restored, particularly as there is some reason to believe that U.S. indigenous production might fall over a reasonable period of time. We are therefore calling on the industry for an all-out effort this year in regard to its dollar exports. Although there are the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Member in reference to the production of particular kinds of clays best suited to particular markets, I think it is possible to make too much of that argument. The coal allocated last year, as an act of faith that the industry would greatly increase its dollar exports, was allocated on the prospect of a very big increase, and after full discussion with the company who, knowing the difficulties referred to, were still confident this high target could be achieved.
In addition to the export target of the industry, it is of great importance for meeting home requirements. Again I would like to pay tribute to the fact that the industry has fulfilled its pledge to keep essential home industries supplied with their requirements. There is a wide range of industries using Cornish china clay. I will not go through them all. The chief one is paper—168,000 tons last year. Pottery is very much less with 65,000 tons. Rubber, paint, cement, are all industries which, without this clay, would have serious difficulties in maintaining production.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the major problems of the industry in increasing its production. The first is manpower. Last year just under zoo prisoners of war were engaged. We are now trying to replace them with Pales.
But the problem is exactly that which we are faced with for British workersaccommodation—though I hope we are going to be able to overcome that difficulty. There is the very special problem, for those who have to come from a distance, of travelling expenses. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking at this matter, and hope to get some settlement one way or the other fairly quickly.
He naturally referred to the particular problem of housing. The rural district council of St. Austell, as opposed to the urban district council, covers an area in which three-fifths of the population consists of clay workers and their families, and the housing programme for that area has to have special regard to the needs of the workers in the china clay industry. The housing programme of that council, which was worked out in 1946, was for 65o houses over five years. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that that covers little more than the replacement of houses which are becoming uninhabitable for one reason or another. This is a very real problem in the St. Austell area. The housing facilities for a long time have been grossly inadequate for the needs of a district serving an important industry. I do not want to go into the inadequacy in detail, or to impute blame for the responsibility, over a very long period, for the neglect of housing in this area. It is a sad story, and I am sure we would agree there is no purpose in going into it tonight. The local councils and the Government responsible in that period must bear a heavy responsibility for our difficulties. I am afraid the councils concerned before the war were very laggard in this respect, as in so many others, but I am sure that under the stimulus of the hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Town and Country Planning, these councils are now very different from what they were before the war.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be the first to realise it is very much more difficult now because of manpower and materials difficulties to do all we would like to do in this matter. I am in close consultation with the Minister of Health, who himself has been in touch with the local authorities to see what can be clone about it. The china clay industry have themselves offered to build some additional Cornish unit houses for both the TT.D.C. and R.D.C. concerned for alloca-


tion to china clay workers. This matter is being gone into at the present moment and I hope to see it settled very quickly.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to the question of the industry getting additional coal to produce another 175,000 tons, with export strings attached, to which both he and I have referred. He also asked about machinery. The industry, of course, was heavily concentrated in the war and naturally got behindhand in the work of development and mechanisation, and certainly it has not yet caught up with the backlog caused by those difficulties. But I think from the evidence we have had from the industry and from what was said by the representatives of the industry when granted building licences, machinery has not been in fact a bottleneck. There have been individual difficulties and we have helped where we can. In two recent applications put forward by the major combine in the industry, it was stated that the quantities of machinery required had all been ordered and delivery had been promised by June, suggesting that not machinery delays, but building difficulties, were responsible.

Mr. D. Marshall: The first thing is the delay in the submission of plans when different plans have been put forward to the Board of Trade to see whether or not they meet with approval.

Mr. Wilson: There have been difficulties. The principal difficulty in relation to building licences is steel. There is not enough steel in the country for a whole host of highly desirable dollar earning or dollar saving schemes in other industries as well as the china clay. The steel industry is going full

blast, but its capacity is not big enough to meet all the needs of this country. That is why there is the scrutiny of programmes to which the hon. gentleman referred.
The hon. gentleman asked a number of other questions which I am sorry I have not time to deal with. In regard to food, I am sure he will realise the difficulties of allocating an additional meat ration in order that pasties can be made at home rather than on mass production lines, I recognise the importance of individuality in this matter of pasty supplies, but I am sure the hon. gentleman will recognise that repercussion in other industries would be so great that his suggestion is not a starter this time.
I will look further into the question of dock facilities. He also raised the question of trucks—I take it he refers to railway wagons. The position has improved considerably, but I would like to get the facts in relation to the china clay industry. On shipping I have had a number of discussions on this question with the industry. Of course, it does seem anomalous that we have to have so many foreign vessels, but the chief difficulty, as the hon. gentleman knows, is the long delays caused in loading and discharging china clay, which does make it cheaper for us to send ships in ballast, than to load up return vessels with china clay. There is more I could say, but my hon. Friend is an expert in shipping and knows it as well as I do. I should be very glad to have a discussion with him some time after this Debate.

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter-past Twelve o'Clock.